Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London County Council (Money) Bill (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:—

London County Council (Money) Bill, Bill to be read a Second time.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of York, North Riding (Scarborough and Whitby Division), in the room of Captain Sidney Herbert (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

WOOLLEY COLLIERY, BARNSLEY.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines the date upon which the district executive board issued is decision to the Woolley Colliery, Barnsley; the date upon which the owners of the colliery lodged an appeal against that decision; the date which has been fixed for the hearing of the appeal; and what steps the owners have taken to expedite a decision in the matter?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I have made inquiries from the executive board for the Midland (Amalgamated) District and I am informed that the standard tonnage for the Woolley pit was notified to the owners on the 11th December, 1930; on the following clay the owners gave notice
of objection. The objection was heard on the 7th January, when an increased standard tonnage was granted. The owners intimated their intention of taking the matter to arbitration, but did not actually select the arbitrators until the 2nd April. In the meantime the Barnsley Town Council and others had complained to the district committee of investigation which on the 13th March recommended to the executive board that an increase in standard tonnage should be given. On this recommendation a further increase in standard tonnage was notified to the owners on the 24th March. The hearing before the arbitrators was on the 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th April. The decision in the matter now rests with the arbitrators.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister has severely criticised these owners for deliberate delay in this matter, and will he now put the real facts befort the Prime Minister?

Mr. SHINWELL: If necessary, I shall put all relative facts before the Prime Minister, but the facts are as stated in reply to the question.

STATISTICS.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines the average weekly earnings in the mining industry in Great Britain in 1913, and for the latest date available, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: The average weekly cash earnings of all workers employed in the coal mines in Great Britain during 1913 was £1 11s. 6d., and during 1930, £2 4s. 4d. I regret that similar information for Lancashire and Cheshire is not available for 1913, but during 1930 the figure was £2 1s. 10d.

Mr. MACDONALD: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons employed in the mining industry of Great Britain in 1913, and for the latest date for which figures are available, specifying the number employed underground and the number employed on the surface, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will circulate it with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:


—
Number of Persons employed in the Coal Mining Industry.



Below ground.
On surface.*


Great Britain—




1913
890,800
213,600


December, 1930 (provisional)
719,600
188,600


Lancashire and Cheshire—




1913
84,600
23,100


December, 1930 (provisional)
57,100
17,900


* Including Clerks and Salaried persons.

Mr. MACDONALD: 4.
asked the Secretary for Mines the total output of coal cut by machines in the mining industry of Great Britain in 1913 and at the latest date available, giving separate figures for Lancashire and Cheshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: In 1913, the total quantity of coal cut by machines at mines in Great Britain was 24,369,516 tons and in 1930, 71,949,511 tons. The corresponding figures for Lancashire and Cheshire were 1,995,481 tons and 3,840,293 tons, respectively.

Mr. McSHANE: Can my hon. Friend state whether, in respect of last year, there was a tendency for the number of coal-cutting machines to be reduced?

Mr. SHINWELL: Over the whole country, I should say no.

CONVEYORS.

Mr. TINKER: 5.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many coal conveyors were in use underground in the coal mines of Great Britain in December, 1930; how many tons they will carry over a given period; and will he give corresponding figures for 1924?

Mr. SHINWELL: During 1930 the number of conveyors in use at the coal face was 2,991 and elsewhere below ground 756. No information is available as to the total capacity of these conveyors, but the quantity of coal so conveyed in 1930 was 421 million tons. Similar figures for 1924 are not available, except that the number of face conveyors then in use was 1,373.

Mr. TINKER: Can my hon. Friend tell me what county has shown the greatest increase since 1924?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member will put down that question, I will give a reply.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can my hon. Friend say if these conveyors are proving highly satisfactory and how many mines now use them entirely to the exclusion of pit ponies and horses?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a question which had better be put upon the Paper.

PRICES.

Mr. ALBERY: 6.
asked the Secretary for Mines approximately to what extent there has been a rise in the price of coal to gas companies during the last few months?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am not aware of the contract prices paid by gas companies for their coal.

Mr. ALBERY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of gas has recently been put up, and will he inquire whether it is due to the rise in the price of coal?

Mr. SHINWELL: If there is any gas company aggrieved by any increase in the price of coal, they may apply to the committee of investigation in their neighbourhood to have the matter dealt with.

Mr. ALBERY: Is not the hon. Member aware that it is the consumer who is aggrieved and not the gas company?

Mr. SHINWELL: And, similarly, if the consumer feels aggrieved at any increase in the price of gas which he believes to be due to the increased price of coal, he may take the matter to the committee of investigation.

MINERS' WELFARE FUND (COMMITTEE).

Colonel LANE FOX: 7.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has yet been able to set up his promised independent committee of inquiry into the working of the Miners' Welfare Fund; and whether he can state its terms of reference and the names of its chairman and members?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am glad to be able to announce that Lord Chelmsford has provisionally consented to act as chairman of this committee. The details of the remaining personnel have not yet been finally settled, but I have invited the Mining Association of Great Britain and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain to nominate one member each. I propose that the committee's terms of reference should be wide, and should include inquiry into the use already made of the fund, and its future scope and administration, with particular reference to the amount and duration of the levy.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE, OTTAWA.

Captain BOURNE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the date on which the Imperial Economic Conference will assemble at Ottawa?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Some date in the latter part of August seems most likely, but the exact date has not yet been settled.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the agenda paper of the conference will be published before the conference is held?

Mr. THOMAS: I am not certain about that, but the terms of reference as adjourned from the last conference seem very wide.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMINIONS (REPATRIATION).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that 36 persons have recently arrived at Plymouth on board the steamship "Ansonia," having been deported from Canada, and that they include the family of a man who went out from
Yorkshire in 1926 with his wife and four children, and another family who had been in Canada since 1923; whether he has any facts relating to these deportations; and whether he intends to make representations to the Canadian Government?

Mr. THOMAS: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that, of the persons concerned, 25 had become public charges, four had been convicted, and four had medical defects. As regards the general considerations involved, I have already taken steps to get into touch with His Majesty's Government in Canada.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman raise the principles involved in this matter at the conference?

Mr. THOMAS: The principles involved are very far-reaching. The first point is: Can you interfere with a Dominion that has been given absolute self-government in their own internal administration? The second point that emerges from that is as to the difficulties of folk going abroad and taking all the risks and then finding themselves in the unfortunate circumstances enumerated in the question. The hon. Gentleman must understand how difficult and delicate is the situation.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not a question of interfering but of negotiating, and cannot some principle of common citizenship in the Empire be established?

Mr. THOMAS: Nothing would please me better, but, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, having said to the Dominions, "You are your own boss." you cannot very well interfere.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Cannot a suggestion be made to the Dominion.

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of emigrants repatriated from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand within the last available 12 months?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): According to returns furnished voluntarily to the Board of Trade by the principal steamship companies, the numbers of
British subjects who were sent back to the United Kingdom by the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand authorities during the year 1930, were 2,634, 218, and one respectively.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is an increase on previous years?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. McSHANE: Is this the first fruit of the Empire Free Trade policy?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Can the President of the Board of Trade say the number of Canadians and Australians who have been repatriated from this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should also require notice of that question. The question was confined to the narrow point as to the number of migrants repatriated from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand during the last 12 months.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

DOMINION WHEAT (IMPORTS).

Mr. HURD: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the Governments of the wheat-growing Dominions are being consulted as to the form of wheat quota in British fiscal policy which would best encourage, their importations into this country?

Mr. THOMAS: His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have undertaken to consult the Governments of the wheat-growing Dominions as soon as they are in a position to do so. The position is set out on page 49 of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference of 1930.

Mr. HURD: Inasmuch as this matter is now understood to be receiving the immediate attention of the Cabinet, will not the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of consulting the Dominions before any decision is come to by the Government here?

Mr. THOMAS: Oh, no. The Dominions made it perfectly clear at the Imperial Conference that their policy was to consider the interests of their awn people first; and I shall not he accused of being
unfair if I say that that must equally be the position of this country.

Mr. HURD: Would not the right hon. Gentleman be in a better position to make a policy here that might be acceptable all round if—

Mr. SPEAKER: That appears to be a matter of opinion.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the fact that India is a wheat exporting country and that the Dominion of South Africa is not, will the right hon. Gentleman see that in these negotiations a representative of India is also included?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. The proceedings of the last Imperial Conference show that India was represented, and the Indian representative made it perfectly clear all through that they were not likely to be ignored.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the request from the iron and steel industry that the report of the Civil Research Committee should be published; and whether he will reconsider his previous decision and accede to this request?—

Mr. REMER: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the policy of the Government with reference to the steel industry; if he will now publish the report of the committee set up; and whether the policy of the Government will involve either legislation or financial assistance?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As regards the report on the iron and steel industry, the request to which I understand the hon. and gallant Member for King's Norton (Major Thomas) to refer was carefully considered, but the Government felt, and still feel, that they must adhere to their decision regarding publication. As regards the policy of the Government, this can best be dealt with on the occasion of the Board of Trade Vote.

Major THOMAS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the information contained in this report is of more value to the general public than the political statements that have been made by his colleagues during the last few days?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is not a question of comparing the information in the report with statements made on the platform and elsewhere. The whole background of the report has to be considered. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that this is a decision which is entirely in the interests of the industry and the nation.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, with regard, to Question 19, that there is considerable disquiet in the steel trade at the non-publication of the report, and will he take steps, particularly in view of the Prime Minister's speech last week, to see that something is done in order to relieve the anxiety in the trade?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that that statement is not accurate. There is a certain difference of opinion in the industry, but in any event we are in constant consultation with the industry.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Is it not an extremely difficult position when speeches are made making inferences from the report, as was done last week, and the report has not been put before the House and the country?

Mr. GRAHAM: The reference last week was based on facts that are well known to both sides of the industry. There was only a very general reference to the fact that this inquiry had taken place, and nothing more than that.

Major COLVILLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government take full responsibility for withholding this report from the public?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already indicated our decision, and to that we adhere. For that decision we, as a Government, are responsible.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Would it not be a breach of the conditions on which the evidence was tendered if the report were published?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is precisely one of the points to consider. A large amount of the evidence was tendered on the strict understanding that it would be regarded as confidential. That is a point which we have to bear in mind.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: Is that one of the reasons why extracts from the report were published in Germany?

INDUSTRIAL SURVEY.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the industrial survey in certain industrial areas has yet commenced; and what organisations are engaged upon this work, in addition to the universities, in the areas concerned?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question there is nothing I can usefully add to the reply which I gave the right hon. Gentleman on the 24th March last.

TARIFFS.

Sir K. WOOD: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is engaged in any further negotiations with a view to securing reductions in European customs tariffs; and if he can state the results to date?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave last Tuesday to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Harmon), of which I am sending him a copy. To this I should, however, add that in addition to the replies therein referred to a reply has now been received from the Government of Austria.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman having regard to the cost of all these negotiations and the very large sum of money which is lost to the nation by his last efforts?

Mr. GRAHAM: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any outlay will be infinitesimal compared with the advantages that may be derived.

COTTON INDUSTRY (INDIA).

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has made to the representations from the Cotton Spinners and Manufacturers Association to the effect that the provisional agreement in India has not led to any notable improvement in Lancashire trade?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have received from the Cotton Spinners and Manufac-
turers Association a communication which I understand to be the one referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. This communication did not appear to call for any reply.

Mr. HACKING: In that communication was the opinion expressed that the right hon. Gentleman had misled the country in the, interview he gave at Edinburgh to the effect that the Lancashire cotton industry had improved as a result of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement which had been arrived at?

Mr. GRAHAM: No. Various statements were made in that communication, but I entirely repudiate the suggestion that in the interview I in any way misled the country.

Mr. HACKING: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his statement included an assertion to the effect that the Lancashire cotton industry had improved as a result of the signing of the Irwin-Gandhi agreement?

Mr. GRAHAM: I take the view that the existence of such agreement does and will provide a better environment for commercial relations, and I think there are various points in which even now there is improvement, although I made it perfectly clear that it is an improvement within narrow limits.

Mr. HERBERT GIBSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the questions asked by the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hacking) are tending to bring about ill-feeling between this country and India?

Earl WINTERTON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Any further question must be put on the Order Paper?

FOREIGN IMPORTS (MARKING).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion of our imports from foreign countries which are now marked with the country of origin?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I regret that it is not possible to give the desired information. I am, however, sending the hon. Member summaries of the Orders in Council which have been made in respect of both general merchandise and agricultural and horticultural produce.

Mr. WHITE: Is there any evidence that this marking has an effect on sales one way or the other?

Mr. GRAHAM: That would be very difficult to describe in reply to a supplementary question. I should require notice about individual commodities.

PORTUGUESE PORTS (FLAG DISCRIMINATION).

Major COLVILLE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the representations from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Chamber of Shipping, and the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association protesting against the discrimination in customs duties exercised by the Portuguese Government against cargoes carried in British vessels; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given yesterday by my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. A. M. Samuel).

Major COLVILLE: In view of the widespread feeling in British circles as to the bad effect of this discriminaton on British shipping can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he is taking active steps to make representations to the Portuguese Government, on the matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I have now made definite arrangements for the deputation to be received, and I can assure the House that every aspect of the case will be considered.

Mr. BEAUMONT: May I ask whether the Government have consulted the Liberal party in this matter?

MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade with what countries we enjoy mostfavoured-nation treatment; and with what countries such treatment is only a matter of courtesy?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Generally speaking we enjoy most-favoured-nation treatment practically throughout the world, the principal exceptions being those arising out of the preferential customs
arrangements between Cuba and the United States of America. In Brazil this treatment is enjoyed in respect of all articles except fresh fruit and in San Salvador there are a few goods in regard to which France has preferential treatment. There are also certain cases in which regional arrangements exist between neighbouring countries for mutual preferences which are, however, of little practical importance from the point of view of British trade. Most-favoured-nation treatment though accorded in fact is not guaranteed by Treaty in any of the following countries, namely, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, France, Hedjaz, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, San Domingo, and Uruguay.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: In the absence of tariffs, does the most-favoured-nation Clause amount to very much?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. The short reply is that the most-favoured-nation treatment gives us great advantages.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: But are not those advantages decreased as compared with what they used to be?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a highly debatable point and could only be replied to by an analysis of the figures of a number of individual countries.

WRAPPING PAPER (DUTY).

Sir H. CROFT: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the resolution from the British Paper Packing Federation, representing the largest users of wrapping and packing papers, urging the continuance of the duty on imported packing and wrapping papers for a further period of 10 years; and whether, in view of the trade depression, he is prepared to recommend an extension of the period of Duty?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I received such a resolution from the British Paper Bag Federation last December; the answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this association was originally opposed to the duty hut that they have been converted by the results, and that there is now a growing anxiety among all the workers in the industry that the Government will reconsider their decision?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not sure that I agree with the hon. and gallant Member as to the conversion, but the fact that their own commodities were protected may have had something to do with their action.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a protest from a large body of consumers against the huge burdens which these duties have placed upon them?

Mr. GRAHAM: Various communications have reached me, but I could not say without notice whether there has been one on this particular subject. There are, however, constant representations as to the effect of these duties on prices.

Mr. ALBERY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the estimated increase in unemployment in the packing and wrapping paper trade as a result of the cessation of the import duty on 1st May?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is not practicable to make a forecast as to the future course of employment in the industry in question but I cannot accept the hon. Member's implication.

Mr. ALBERY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to the report of the Amalgamated Society of Paper Makers and to the great concern expressed therein by the workers in the industry?

Mr. O'CONNOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any single industry which has been deprived of Safeguarding where there has not been an increase in unemployment?

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage reductions in the volume of British imports and exports, respectively, for the first quarter of 1931, as compared with the first quarter of 1929, distinguishing in each case food, drink and tobacco, raw materials, and manufactured articles?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate the desired figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us now the difference in the totals?

Mr. GRAHAM: They are not really totals; they are percentage differences, applicable to the four heads of exports and imports, and they are in tabular form

STATEMENT showing the percentage increase (+) or decrease (-) in the volume of the trade of the United Kingdom in the first quarter of 1931 as compared with the corresponding period of 1929.


Category.
Total Imports.
Exports.


Produce and Manufactures of the U.K.
Imported Merchandise.



Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.


Food, Drink and Tobacco
(+) 0.4
(-) 5.3
(+) 15.6


Raw Materials and articles mainly unmanufactured.
(-) 21.3
(-) 27.5
(-) 24.9


Articles wholly or mainly manufactured
(-) 0.4
(-) 39.1
(-) 12.2


Total (including animals not for food and parcel post non-dutiable).
(-) 7.1
(-) 35.2
(-) 13.8

SUEZ CANAL.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is investigating the complaints of British shipowners against the scale of Suez Canal dues; and, if so, will he say when he can make a statement or issue a report upon the position?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This matter is being carefully considered, and I hope soon to be in a position to make a statement.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that complaints were made to the Foreign Office by six great European maritime Powers quite recently?

Mr. GRAHAM: All points will be taken into account. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have received, and continue to receive, a very large number of representations.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the President of the Board of Trade therefore in the meantime convey to the board of administration of the Canal Company the fact that their methods are now becoming a source of international friction?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend not in a position to use the voting power of the British Gov-

which it will be most inconvenient to read.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: But at the end of the table the right hon. Gentleman has given the difference in the percentages. [Interruption.]

Following is the statement:

ernment stocks held in this company, to influence policy?

Mr. GRAHAM: I prefer not to be drawn into a controversy on that point, pending the reply, following the present discussions, which I hope to give to the House at a very early date.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether His Majesty's Government will in future use its voting power in such a way that when British directors are appointed to the board of the Suez Canal Company the appointment to the directorate shall be subject to the proviso of retirement at 65 years of age, in order that the board may be staffed by directors conversant with the changing conditions of export trade as apart from ship owning?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In practice, no question arises of His Majesty's Government using its voting Dower as a shareholder in the Suez Canal Company in connection with the appointment of British directors. It is the custom for the seven unofficial British directors representing British shipping and commerce to fill vacancies by nominating a new director, whose appointment is ratified in due course by the General Assembly. The three official
British directors are appointed by His Majesty's Government, and no retiring age has been prescribed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the practice for the retiring British directors to appoint their successors?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It applies to some extent in the case of the seven unofficial directors to whom I have referred.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it not the case that it does not matter what the British Government do about the British directors, because the French have a majority?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I should not agree that the board of directors is entirely governed by considerations of that kind.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the total amount received in 1930 by each of the directors of the Suez Canal Company appointed by the British Government; and on what basis, the fees, allowances, bonuses, commissions, or other emoluments, if any, are calculated?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): As stated yeserday in reply to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), two per cent. of the net profits of the Suez Canal Company are, in accordance with the Statutes, alloted to the directorate. The income of each director depends to some extent on the number of meetings attended by him. My right hon. Friend is, therefore, unable to state the exact amounts received by the British official directors last year.

Mr. W. B. TAYLOR: What is the average number of meetings per year?

Mr. DALTON: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. HAYCOCK: What does each director get for a meeting?

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the directors nominated by the Government to represent British interests on the board of the Suez Canal Company have had personal experience
of British commerce and are familiar with the continuously changing conditions of those British exporting industries which ship their manufactures through the Suez Canal?

Mr. DALTON: It appears that the appointments, made by previous Governments, have not usually been given to persons with specialised business experience, but rather to persons with Parliamentary or official experience.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now summon the Wilfrid Greene Committee and ask them to provide amendments to remedy the defects in the Companies Act, 1929, so as to prevent a recurrence of the practices disclosed in the Hatry and Royal Mail disasters, and in the liquidation of certain companies floated during the boom period of 1928–29?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: If the hon. and gallant Member will specify the practices which he has in mind and which he considers could be prevented by legislation, the points will be noted for investigation when the desirability of amending the Companies Act is under consideration.

Mr. ALBERY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up another Committee to deal with this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: There was a Committee prior to the passing of the Act in 1929. I have already informed the House that I am collecting all the representations made, and they will be considered and, if necessary, put on the Table.

Sir B. FALLE: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, seeing that the methods by which the earnings and losses of subsidiaries forming the main assets of a parent, company are disclosed provide no protection to shareholders of parent public companies operating under the 1929 Act or under a Royal Charter, he intends to allow the revealed defects both in the provisions of the 1929 Act and in the general terms of a Royal Charter with regard to published accounts to continue any longer un-amended?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should prefer to await the results' of the investigations which are
proceeding in the particular case which the hon. and gallant Member doubtless has in mind before expressing any opinion as to the desirability of considering any amendment of the law.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHAMPTON WATERS (STRANDINGS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the condition of the waters around Southampton and the Isle of Wight; and whether the recent stranding of ocean-going vessels was due to any uncharted obstructions?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: There is no evidence in my possession which suggests that the recent strandings were due to uncharted obstructions, nor am I aware of any dangers to navigation in the waters referred to which are not known to sailors.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these vessels stranded?

Mr. GRAHAM: The usual forms have been lodged, and in two cases there was fog, and in another case haze and certain other explanations.

Sir BASIL PETO: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the circumstances of the recent groundings of three important vessels at the approaches to the port of Southampton have been brought to his attention; whether he proposes that an official inquiry shall be held as to what improvements are possible in the approach to Southampton for large liners; and whether the Government will call for a report and consider what, if any, assistance they can give towards carrying out the works required?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware of the circumstances attending the grounding of the vessels referred to. The question of improving the approach to Southampton is one for the consideration of the harbour and lighthouse authorities concerned, and I am communicating with those authorities on the question. When their replies are received, the matter will be considered again.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FILM INDUSTRY (AMERICAN INTERESTS).

Mr. REMER: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, if he is aware that the American Telegraph and Telephone Company and the Western Electric group have, by subsidiary companies, recently obtained control of the Gaumont British Picture Corporation and are Americanising the entertainment industry in this country; and if he will include a suitable Amendment in the Companies Acts to prevent undisclosed foreign control of companies and to make effective provisions in articles of association designed to that end, as were lately inserted in the articles of association of the Gaumont British Picture Company?

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Limited, controlling the making of films and owning the General Theatre Corporation and the chain of theatres called the Provincial Cinema Theatres is a British or an American controlled company; and whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the use of the word British in the title of any public company controlled by non-British capital?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am circulating a statement containing the available information in regard to the holding of the shares in the Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Limited, as disclosed in the records of the Registrar of Companies—also in regard to the restriction of voting rights. The general question of compelling disclosure of the persons who are the beneficial owners of the shares in a company or otherwise in control of the company, as distinct from those whose names are required to be stated in the documents filed with the Registrar, is one of very great, difficulty and in the present condition of Parliamentary business it would not be possible to find time for the consideration of legislation dealing with such a contentious matter.

Mr. REMER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees that by their action these two companies are Americanising the British film industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot subscribe to that contention, and I should prefer it if the hon. Member will look at the de-
tailed statement which I have offered to submit.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the majority of picture companies who style themselves as British companies are really American companies?

Following is the statement:

The annual return dated 10th October, 1930, filed with the Registrar of Companies shows that of the 5,000,000 ordinary shares of the Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Limited, 3,105,000 are held by the Metropolis and Bradford Trust Company, Limited, which is therefore in control of the company. The annual return of the Metropolis and Bradford Trust Company, Limited, dated 5th November, 1930, shows that of the 10,000 A shares which alone carry voting rights 4,950 are held by three persons of British nationality named Ostrer, 4,750 by the United American Investing Corporation, and 300 by three other individuals, but according to a statement issued to the Press by the Gaumont British Picture Corporation it would appear that 200 of these shares represent the American interest already mentioned, leaving 100 shares held by a British subject independently of the other interests. The articles of association of the Gaumont British Picture Corporation, Limited, contain elaborate provisions for securing that voting rights will not be exercised directly or indirectly on behalf of persons of foreign nationality or foreign companies or companies under foreign control. It is open to any company that so desires to include provisions of this kind in its articles.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFFORESTATION (STATISTICS).

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: 31.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether he can state how many acres in the Scottish hills, the Welsh hills and the Yorkshire moors, respectively, it has been definitely arranged to plant with Sitka spruce in the next 12 months; when it is proposed to begin the necessary work of preparing the ground; what is the maximum number of men who will be employed at any one time in connection with the planting of Sitka spruce in the localities
named during the next six months; and, in general, how many acres it is hoped to get planted and how many men employed in the next six months?

Mr. ALPASS (Forestry Commissioner): I have been asked to reply. The Forestry Commissioners' planting programme for the next 12 months is 28,000 acres. Sitka spruce will be planted on peat lands for which it has been found to be the most suitable species. In the localities specified the acreage which will be planted with this species is as follows: Scottish hills 4,200 acres, Welsh hills 1,450, and Yorkshire moors 300. Preparation of the ground will begin in May. The maximum number of persons who will be employed at any one time in connection with the planting of Sitka spruce in the localities named during the next six months is 800. No actual planting will be done in the next six months, as spring and summer are unsuitable seasons for tree planting. It is anticipated that the average number of persons that will be employed by the Commissioners in the next six months will not be less than 3,500.

Sir T. INSKIP: Will the hon. Member say whether the number of acres it is hoped to plant with Sitka spruce will be planted within the next 12 months?

Mr. ALPASS: Yes, I should assume so, and, if I may suggest it to the hon. and learned Member, perhaps, seeing that be is so interested in this question, he might use his good offices with some of his landowning friends and get them to withdraw their opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the fact that, despite the increase in the numbers of the unemployed since the present Government assumed office, the deficiency on the establishment of the Regular Army at home, abroad and in India has increased during the same period by 2,500, he will take steps to make the advantages of a career in the Army more widely known?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Every practicable opportunity is taken to make known the
advantages which a career in the Army offers, and the recent special efforts to stimulate recruiting resulted in the intake of recruits for the financial year which ended on 31st March last being over 5,000 greater than for the previous financial year. It is proposed to repeat such efforts when necessary. Men are asked to join the Army of their own free will, and as I have repeatedly stated, no special pressure will be brought to bear on unemployed men.

Earl WINTERTON: Actually is the Regular Army establishment in India deficient, or is the deficiency only at home?

Mr. SHAW: I should like notice of that question.

CEREBRO-SPINAL FEVER.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for War if the military camp at Aldershot is now completely free from spotted fever; if cases are reported from Catterick camp; and whether there is any similar epidemic in other camps in England?

Mr. SHAW: During the present month there have been two fresh admissions to hospital at Aldershot in respect of cerebro-spinal fever. As regards Catterick, there have been four admissions during the present year. At no military centre other than Aldershot and Catterick have there been more than three cases during the present year, and there has been no epidemic at any military centre, sporadic cases only having occurred. The hon. Member does not, I hope, think that this is a disease occurring only among troops; it has, unfortunately, occurred also among the civil population.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this occurs more frequently in military camps than elsewhere?

Mr. SHAW: I could not reply without notice. I should have to consult the figures of specific cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD SCHEME (WEST LOTHIAN).

Mr. MACLEAN: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the reason that caused the West
Lothian County Council to defer the proposal to construct a road along the foreshore between Bo'ness and South Queens-ferry; and whether he can state the price per acre asked by the landowners and the annual amount at present paid in taxes for that land, and the value at which it is rated on the assessment roll?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): My right hon. Friend regrets that he has not been furnished with information to enable him to reply to this question. He submitted it to the county clerk for his observations, but he replies that he has no instructions from his council to give any reason for their decision in the matter referred to in the question. He has asked the county clerk to bring his request to the notice of the county council, and I trust they will authorise their clerk to supply the necessary information. I shall inform my hon. Friend of the result.

Mr. MACLEAN: If I put a question on the Paper next Tuesday, does the Under-Secretary think that he will have received a reply from the county clerk by that time?

Mr. WESTWOOD: We will hope so, and if we have the reply I shall be in a position to give an answer.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. REMER: 40.
asked the Minister of Transport if his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused by the limitation of speed for vehicles carrying perishable goods, such as milk, under the Road Traffic Act; and if he will exercise his powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 10 of that Act to allow these vehicles to travel at the same speed as that allowed for the conveyance of horses?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that vehicles carrying perishable goods should be allowed to travel at speeds greater than those recently determined by Parliament in the First Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930. While horses conveyed in motor vehicles constitute a light load, the laden weight of vehicles carrying perishable goods such as milk may reach the maximum laden weight allowed by law for the class to which the vehicle belongs.

Mr. REMER: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the machines are the same machines and are carrying practically the same weight; is it not ridiculous that there should be different speeds, and how is anybody to know what they are carrying?

Mr. MORRISON: In the case of horses we know that the weight will not be unduly heavy. In the case of perishable goods, we know that the weight may be heavy.

ROAD BRIDGES (RIVERS FORTH AND TAY).

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the proposal to hold a conference of local authorities regarding the proposed road bridges over the Rivers Forth and Tay, the Government has now decided in favour of this scheme; and, if so, whether the subject matter of the conference will pertain only to the local authorities' share of the capital cost or to other expenditure?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: No decision has been taken in favour of any of the various bridge schemes under consideration affecting the Forth and the Tay excepting the proposed bridge at Kincardine-on-Forth. The discussion with the local authorities will therefore have to cover a wider field than that of mere apportionment of cost.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: As this scheme was included in the statement of the Lord Privy Seal, as one of the proposals for providing employment, could not the Government, in order to facilitate the decision of the local authorities, afford their support to the scheme; and is not this the only way in which Scotland will get a substantial share of the money that is going?

Mr. MORRISON: As a matter of negotiation, I think that the suggestion of my hon. Friend would be most unwise, and, if he looks up the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, he will find that there is no inconsistency between that statement and my answer.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I heard the Lord Privy Seal's statement and I have seen it since, and may I ask if the Lord Privy Seal did not state that one of the proposals under consideration was for carrying out this scheme?

Mr. MORRISON: I do not know that I have said anything which is inconsistent with the Lord Privy Seal's statement.

Major COLVILLE: Is it not the case that, in spite of the Lord Privy Seal's statement, the matter is exactly where it was?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

INDUSTRIAL INSTITUTIONS (DOMESTIC SERVANTS).

Mr. MACLEAN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that young women sent to certain industrial institutions in Edinburgh and Aberdeen are sent out by those institutions to work as domestic servants without any wages and under such conditions of service that the girls go back to their homes and are then re-arrested and given heavier sentences; and whether he will inquire into the matter with a view to improving the conditions of these young women?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I assume that the question refers to girls in industrial schools conducted under the Children Act and I have made inquiry from all such schools in Scotland. I find that there is no justification for the suggestion made in the question. In all cases girls sent from these institutions to domestic service are engaged for a money wage in addition to board and lodging. In most cases the wages are paid direct to the girls, but in some, banking arrangements under the supervision of the school are made in the interest of the girls themselves. The school authorities investigate the character of the situation at the outset, and at regular intervals ascertain that the girls are working under satisfactory conditions.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that many of these girls are not told anything about the fact that banking arrangements are being made for any wages paid, and that some of these girls have been in employment without having a halfpenny to spend for many months?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I will certainly be prepared to make investigations into the statement made by my hon. Friend, but he can rest assured that on the informa-
tion provided to me from the 10 industrial schools referred to there is no justification for his statement.

Mr. MACLEAN: If the reply is such as has been made by these industrial schools, and if the facts which are in the possession of several hon. Members are against that reply, will the hon. Member use his influence with the Secretary of State to have an inquiry into this matter?

Mrs. MANNING: Do I understand that these banking arrangements are made voluntarily by the girls, or is it an involuntary thing?

Mr. WESTWOOD: These arrangements are made by the industrial schools themselves and the wages are paid directly to the girls in all cases, with the exception of two, according to the information at my disposal.

DUNFERMLINE COLLEGE OF HYGIENE.

Mr. WATSON: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a decision has yet been arrived at respecting the proposed transfer of students from the Dunfermline College of Hygiene and Physical Education; and whether, in view of the opposition the suggestion has aroused and the trouble and expense the establishment of the college has caused to the Carnegie Dunfermline Trust, he can see his way to continue the work of the college as at present?

Mr. WESTWOOD: It has been decided that as from October next the men students shall receive their training at the Glasgow Training Centre, where the necessary provision is being made. As regards the women students, I understand that the question whether they should ultimately receive their training at Dunfermline, or elsewhere, is likely to be considered at an early date by the National Committee for the Training of Teachers in conference with the Carnegie Dunfermline Trustees, who act as managers of the college. In the meanwhile, steps are being taken for the appointment of a woman principal to supervise the training of the women students at Dunfermline.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS.

Mr. SCOTT: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the benefit conferred upon smallholders
and applicants for smallholdings in Scotland by the issue in 1912 and 1915 by the Board of Agriculture of several leaflets giving information as to the opportunities, rights, and procedure under the Smallholdings Acts; and whether he will now arrange to have these leaflets revised to date and re-issued widely in Scotland?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I think the hon. Member will agree that it would not be convenient to take any action in this matter while the Amending Bill dealing with landholders' tenure is still under consideration by the Legislature. I am prepared to look into the matter when the appropriate time arrives.

Mr. SCOTT: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the holdings constituted by the Department of Agriculture at Wester Hailes, or any of them, have been let at competitive rents; whether the rights of the holders are regulated by the Agricultural Holdings Act or the Smallholdings Acts; under what precise statutory enactment the Department have established the holdings; and what funds they have used in doing so?

Mr. WESTWOOD: None of the holdings constituted at Wester Hailes has been let at a competitive rent. The rights of the tenants are regulated by the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923. The holdings were established under the powers conferred on the Department by Part I of the Land Settlement (Scotland) Act, 1919; and the cost of the scheme has been met from the Agriculture (Scotland) Fund.

Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman state how it is that these tenants are under the Agricultural Holdings Act, which applies to large farmers, while the Government are using the Smallholdings Acts to establish them?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The reason why the tenure is regulated by the Agricultural Holdings Act is that Section 26 (4) of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Act of 1911 provides that a person shall not be admissible to registration as a new holder under the Act in respect of any land within the boundaries of a burgh.

Mr. SCOTT: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these holders can have access to the Scottish Land Court or whether
they are entirely in the hands of the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I would respectfully suggest that that question might be put on the Paper.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the areas in which experiments have been carried out for spotting herring shoals from aircraft; the dates on which those experiments were made; and whether experienced fishermen were carried as observers?

Mr. WESTWOOD: Detailed information regarding the experiments carried out in 1924 is contained in a report published by the Fishery Board for Scotland of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy. The area of survey embraced practically all the grounds fished by the fleets operating from ports between Peterhead and Stronsay, and the period of operations was a period of four weeks from 9th July, 1924. The observers carried were experts drawn from the Fishery Board's scientific and fishery staff with special knowledge of the areas concerned and of fishing conditions generally.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to consider the possibility of carrying out experiments in Shetland waters as the conditions there are more akin to those which occur in Icelandic waters, where such experiments have been so successful?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I shall certainly convey the hon. Member's suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: May I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman if he will suggest to his right hon. Friend, next time, that some practical measures should be taken up as well as scientific observation?

Mr. WESTWOOD: All practical suggestions will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE (BOOKS OF STAMPS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 42.
asked the Postmaster-General how many books of
stamps at 2s. and 3s., separately, were sold during each year since their inception; and whether be will consider the desirability of issuing one at 5s.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The answer to the first part of the question contains a number of figures and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part I will arrange experimentally for the issue of a 5s. book of stamps.

Mr. MARLEY: Is the hon. Gentleman only going to issue one book of stamps at 5s. as suggested in the question?

Following is the answer:

Full particulars of the sales of 2s. books, which were first issued in 1904, are not available. In 1904, 1,000,000 books were sold and in 1913 the number had risen to 7,000,000.

Since 1921 the figures have been roughly:


—
2s. books.
3s. books (first issued 1924).


1921
…
…
11,880,000
—


1922
…
…
10,580,000
—


1923
…
…
10,990,000
—


1924
…
…
7,860,000
7,730,000


1925
…
…
7,770,000
10,490,000


1926
…
…
8,540,000
10,860,000


1927
…
…
10,270,000
11,530,000


1928
…
…
12,130,000
12,140,000


1929
…
…
13,360,000
12,159,000


1930
…
…
14,760,000
12,320,000

Oral Answers to Questions — DUTCH SUGAR-BEET (IMPORTS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 44.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what has been the quantity of. Dutch sugar-beet imported into Great Britain during the past three months; and to what factories it has been consigned?

Mr. CHARLETON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. No official statistics are available, but so far as my right hon. Friend is aware no imported sugar-beet has recently been used in beet-sugar factories in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCE AND INDUSTRY (COMMITTEE'S REPORT).

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now state when the Report of the Committee on Finance and Industry will be presented?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) on 16th April.

Sir K. WOOD: Is there any possibility of having this report within the next two or three weeks.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I think, if the right hon. Gentleman will read what I said recently in a Debate on the Motion for Adjournment, he will see what is the position. I do not think there is any possibility of having it in the course of a fortnight or three weeks.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL ASSURANCE (COMMITTEE).

Sir B. PETO: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of profits made for the years 1930 and 1929 by industrial assurance companies; and the amounts paid out to meet claims in the same years?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The profit shown by the accounts for 1929 as available for shareholders out of the industrial assurance funds of industrial assurance companies was £1,391,136. The amount excludes any profits allocated to policy holders or reserved for specific purposes, e.g., investment reserves, staff bonuses, etc. During the same year £20,498,196 was disbursed in claims on Death and Maturity and £3,080,621 in Surrenders. As some returns for 1930 are not yet due to be furnished the corresponding figures for that year are not available.

Sir B. PETO: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the names of the members and the terms of reference of the committee which he proposes to appoint to report on the law and practice relating to industrial assurance?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Committee on Industrial Assurance which my right hon. Friend has appointed is constituted as follows:

Sir Benjamin Cohen, K.C., Chairman.
Mr. John G. Archibald.
Miss Dorothy Evans, M.A.
Mr. Fred Kershaw, O.B.E., J.P.
Mr. Steuart Macnaghten.
Sir Alfred Watson, K.C.B.
Mr. J. J. Wills.
Sir John Fischer-Williams, K.C.

with Mr. B. K. White, Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies, as Secretary. The terms of reference of the Committee are:
to examine and report on the law and practice relating to Industrial Assurance and to Assurance on the lives of children under 10 years of age, including the question whether any amendment of the law or any addition to it is desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILVER CURRENCY.

Commander BELLAIRS: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the importance of restoring the buying powers of the silver standard countries, whether the Government will inform the Government of the United States of America that it is in favour of an international conference on the monetary basis of silver, as advocated by the resolution passed by Congress?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend on 17th February last to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers).

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL FINANCE (PROPOSED CORPORATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the proposal for the formation of an international financial corporation under the auspices of the Bank of International Settlements was submitted to the Treasury for an opinion; whether the bearing of the proposal on future international debt and reparation payments was considered; what advice was given by the Treasury; and what control will be exercised by the Treasury over the operations of this corporation as affecting international trade and the payment of debts and reparations?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The proposal in question was brought to the notice of the Treasury unofficially, but no opinion or advice was asked for or given and no question of Treasury intervention is involved. Obviously, if such a scheme can be successfully launched on the international markets it should tend to alleviate the present credit difficulties of the world.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: In the case of this scheme being acceptable or accepted, will not the Treasury come in then, in view of the effect on reparations and trade?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have given.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL MINT (EMPIRE DAY MEDALS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what reason the Royal Mint has this year been forbidden by His Majesty's Government to again strike Empire Day medals for the British Empire Union for distribution to children on Empire Day, especially having regard to the fact that such medals have been regularly executed at the Royal Mint to the order of the British Empire Union for the last three years?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: In the circumstances of this particular case it was considered that the order was more appropriately left to a private contractor.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the hon. Gentleman say what were the special circumstances of the ease, having regard to the fact that the Royal Mint struck these medals for three years and made a satisfactory profit out of the transaction?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Clearly, any Government Department, in a trading capacity, must be permitted the same discretion in the acceptance or rejection of orders as commercial houses enjoy.

Sir W. DAVISON: But is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal Mint did not reject the order, but was in-
strutted by the Government to refuse the order?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Will the hon. Gentleman not say if that is so or not?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MUSEUM (NEWSPAPER DEPARTMENT).

Mr. O. LEWIS: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the serious storage problem arising from the accumulation of old newspapers at the British Museum; and whether he is prepared to introduce legislation to enable the trustees to destroy some of these papers?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: An extension of the building for the newspaper department of the British Museum at Hendon is being erected, as recommended by the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries. The Commission considered it undesirable to reduce the demands for storage accommodation by destruction of newspapers, and it is not proposed to introduce legislation for that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OFFICERS (SALARIES AND FEES).

Mr. H. GIBSON: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the amount received by the Law Officers of the Crown for court cases arising out of the De-rating Act?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The fees paid to the Law Officers of the Crown in connection with legal proceedings arising out of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, amount to £8,128 7s.

Mr. GIBSON: Are any other counsel engaged on these cases, and what amounts have been paid to them?

Mr. E. BROWN: Does this amount include the sums paid to the Scottish Law Officers?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I do not think so. I think that it applies only to the English Law Officers.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FOREIGN TENDERS).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 54.
asked the Financial Secretary to, the Treasury whether, seeing that in tenders submitted to the Government it is laid down that the contractor for the goods shall pay rates of wages and observe hours of labour not less favourable than those commonly recognised by employers and trade societies in the trade or district where the work is carried out, this applies also to tenders accepted by the Government from foreign countries?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 13th November, 1930, to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs).

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Does not this put an additional handicap on British manufacturers as against foreign manufacturers, especially in these very difficult times?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: That is a matter of argument which I cannot answer in a Parliamentary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AND POLICE (PENSIONS).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is now in a position to say whether the revised form of inquiry into means will be issued to police pensioners and other ex-employés of local authorities?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The revised form will be issued on the next occasion for its use to police pensioners who have been in receipt of an increase of pension for three years. As regards other ex-employés of local authorities, the Ministry of Health are still in communication with certain of those authorities, but I hope that a decision will be reached shortly and I will inform the hon. Member of the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether any part of the cost of this year's Census is included in the Estimate for Stationery and Printing (Class VII., 14);
and, in particular, whether the estimated cost of the Census is responsible for the increase in the vote for Departmental Stationery (Sub-head E (d)) or for calculating and other machinery (Subhead I (c))?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The Estimate for Stationery and Printing for the current year includes a provision of £24,000 in respect of the Census. Of this amount £2,000 is for stationery, including forms, £4,000 for printing and £18,000 for calculating and other machinery. This last-named provision is responsible for the increase in Sub-head I (c) of the Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will there be recurrent expenditure in future years, or will there be some rebate by selling off these machines after the Census?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLYMOUTH HARBOUR (OIL FUEL).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 57.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the amount of oil fuel which is at present hanging about the surface of the water in Plymouth harbour and that as a result the boats of Devonport watermen, freshly redecorated in readiness for the summer service, have been spoilt; whether he will take steps to remedy this nuisance; and whether, seeing that the watermen have spent considerable sums of money in the redecoration of their boats, he will consider the question of compensating them for the damage sustained?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): Yes, Sir. I am aware that a quantity of oil fuel was noticed in the harbour last month, but its origin has not yet been traced by the dockyard officers; very strict rules against the discharge overboard of oil fuel are observed in the Admiralty service, and we can only assume that this oil comes from some commercial source. The reply to the second part of the question is therefore in the negative.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If it is demonstrated that this oil is Admiralty
oil, will the Admiralty compensate the fishermen as on previous occasions?

Mr. AMMON: Most decidedly, if that can be shown.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: Is it not a fact that most of the ships of the Royal Navy are fitted with oil separators?

Mr. AMMON: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (COURT EVIDENCE).

Mr. FREEMAN: 60.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is yet in a position to give the House any information concerning the method adopted in a case in Palestine of allowing witnesses in court to give evidence behind screens?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): Yes, Sir, a report has been received from the High Commissioner. In two cases tried by the District Court under the Prevention of Crimes Ordinance, three witnesses were allowed to give evidence behind screens. The officer who tried the cases has reported that in the first case the evidence of the

two witnesses concerned was of no value. The evidence of the third witness, which was given in the second of the two cases, was superfluous, as the court had ample evidence from other witnesses on the only point at issue. The officer in question has been informed that the procedure adopted was improper; and the Secretary of State has directed that it shall not be resorted to again.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask what Orders the Prime Minister desires to take this evening?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): It is proposed to make as much progress as possible with the business announced down to and including the further stages of the Mining Industry (Welfare Fund) Bill, but it is not intended to ask the House to sit inordinately late.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 125.

Division No. 217.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cove, William G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Daggar, George
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Or. Christopher
Dallas, George
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C).


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Harbord, A.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hardie, George D.


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Harry
Harris, Percy A.


Arnott, John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Haycock, A. W.


Ayles, Walter
Dukes, C.
Hayday, Arthur


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Duncan, Charles
Hayes, John Henry


Barnes, Alfred John
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Barr, James
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Elmley, Viscount
Herriotts, J.


Benson, G.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Foot, Isaac.
Hopkin, Daniel


Bowen, J. W.
Freeman, Peter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Horrabin, J. F.


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bromfield, William
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brooke, W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Brothers, M.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Jones, Rt. Hon Le[...] (Camborne)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gill, T. H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gillett, George M.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Burgess, F. G.
Glassey, A. E.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gossling, A. G.
Kelly, W. T.


Cameron, A. G.
Gould, F.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Granville, E.
Knight, Holford


Chater, Daniel
Gray, Milner
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Cluse, W. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lang, Gordon


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lathan, G.


Compton, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Lawrence, Susan
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lawson, John James
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Leach, W.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Strauss, G. R.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Sutton, J. E.


Lees, J
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Palmer, E. T
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Perry, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Longbottom, A. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Longden, F.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Thurtle, Ernest


Lunn, William
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Tillett, Ben


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Pole, Major D. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Potts, John S.
Toole, Joseph


McElwee, A.
Price, M. P.
Tout, W. J.


McKinlay, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Townend, A. E.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan, David


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Viant, S. P.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Walker, J.


McShane, John James
Ritson, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Watkins, F. C.


Manning, E. L.
Romeril, H. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Manstlein, W.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


March, S.
Rowson, Guy
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Marcus, M.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Marley, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Marshall, Fred
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
West, F. R.


Mathers, George
Sanders, W. S.
Westwood, Joseph


Matters, L. W.
Sandham, E.
White, H. G.


Maxton, James
Sawyer, G. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Middleton, G.
Scott, James
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Milner, Major J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Morley, Ralph
Sexton, Sir James
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Muff, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shillaker, J. F
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Murnin, Hugh
Shinwell, E.
Wise, E. F.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)



Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Albery, Irving James
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atkinson, C.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, Edward


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Balniel, Lord
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Muirhead, A. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Beaumont, M. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
O'Connor, T. J.


Berry, Sir George
Ferguson, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bird, Ernest Roy
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Penny, Sir George


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Boyce, Leslie
Ganzoni, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Briscoe, Richard George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grace, John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Remer, John R.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.


Butler, R. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Carver, Major W. H.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hanbury, C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Salmon, Major I.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Somerset, Thomas


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cooper, A. Duff
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)




Thompson, Luke
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Tinne, J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Warrender, Sir Victor



Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Train. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain


Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Margesson.

ANCIENT MONUMENTS BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee C.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

GOODS MADE BY FORCED LABOUR.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER - LAMPSON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour.
It is the custom of hon. Members when introducing Bills under the Ten-Minutes Rule to plead the non-partisan character of their proposals and to ask to be allowed to base any particular argument they are putting forward upon something higher than mere faction. I would like to join their ranks on this occasion with the same plea. I wish to approach this subject without any venom or any bias. I would leave to others the advocacy of an embargo on foreign made goods, and to yet others the advocacy of tariffs for such a purpose; I wish to be entirely non-party, seeing that this is not a party question at all. It rises above party questions into the realm of right and wrong. It is a question of ethics as well as of economics; it is a question of honour as well as of trade. Briefly, the issue is this. Goods are being imported from Russia at debauched prices for reasons which do not prevail in this country at all. First of all, the State in Russia is the trader. The State expropriated property in Russia, and was thereby enabled to produce cheaper than anybody in this country can produce. Secondly, in Russia the standard of living is lower than it is in this country. Lastly, it is admitted that goods are produced in Russia by forced labour, which is a vital and final element in production, contributing to cheap prices. Three times over, therefore, there are exclusive causes operating for cheapness in Russia such as do not operate in this country.
It is not for me, in the course of 10 minutes, to argue the question of whether or not goods are made by forced labour in Russia. That has been admitted by representatives of the Government, and I am not here to deny what is obvious; but I would point out that those conditions do not operate in England. The State is not the trader in England, and the State has not expropriated the property of its citizens, secondly, we have in England laws against sweating, and while it is perfectly true that our ideal in protecting the worker has not yet been reached we have in many industries taken steps to prevent sweating. We go a step further. There is one category of workers in this country who are forced to work for nothing and against their will—or practically for nothing—and that is the prisoners who work and labour in our prisons. We look so badly upon those goods that we do not permit them to come into competition with goods produced outside the prisons. Thus you have twice over laws which prevent the production of goods by any form of labour damaging to the community and unfair to the workers. Which party is it who professes to be the keenest against sweating We know that hon. Members opposite are always advocating a further extension of anti-sweating legislation. Will they remember that when they are dealing with goods which come from Russia?
I would ask His Majesty's Government just this—not to treat England worse than Russia. Why penalise British goods by permitting the introduction of goods from Russia which are not merely stolen, but sweated out of the life's blood of disinherited peasants and political prisoners? We have got a record of freedom, a love of freedom second to none. We entered the Great War because it was a fight for freedom, as we believed. We have won the fight for freedom on every front in our history—economic, political and religious. It was English voices raised in this House that sounded the death-knell of black slavery across the seas. It was 300,000 working people of England—[An HON. MEMBER "Britain!"]—of the United Kingdom, 300,000 citizens in the
time of Wilberforce who went without sugar for years sooner than encourage slave labour in the West Indies. They were people who would be called Socialists to-day.
All I ask is that the Socialists of to-day should raise the voice of protest against the entry of these goods into our markets. Are there any Socialists to-day refusing these tainted goods? On the contrary, all that has happened is that His Majesty's Government have recognised the nation under which this has been possible, and have taken no action whatever, although we know that Belgium and the United States and, lastly, one of our Dominions, Canada, has taken strong action in the past few months.
I would appeal to all parties to stop the encouragement of this shame. Some people may get a temporary advantage from it. But is it worth while? Socialists say that they are proud of their international ideals, and they speak a great deal about the solidarity of the workers of the world. Do they like to see their brethren in Russia starving in order that Englishmen may be full? Can they stand up and in their hearts honestly support this trafficking in flesh and blood? They may say that it is impossible to introduce an embargo. I accept that for the moment, but I would say that they can invite the League of Nations to act. We have been told that the reason why they cannot invite the League of Nations to act is because Russia is not a member of the League. But another Government outside the League acted when Liberia got into difficulties over slavery conditions.
We are told that the case of Liberia is not analogous to that of Russia, as Liberia is a member of the League. I would remind hon. Members opposite that it was not a member of the League of Nations which invited the League to step in. It was the United States of America, and if the United States of America was able to invite the League to intervene in the case of a small country like Liberia, why should our Government not invite the same State to take action in the case of Russia? The Cabinet may wish to keep friends with a Government in Russia which preaches the brotherhood of man with bombs and bullets. But that slavery has been proved, and it is the duty of every honest citizen to stamp it out. The
conscience of the world is outraged by this horror. It is cowardly, it is un-English, it is caddish to encourage it one moment longer.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: The hon. and gallant Member has used the opportunity in moving to introduce a Bill under the 10 Minutes' Rule to make a very thinly-disguised attack upon Russia. The whole of his speech was devoted to an attack upon Russian labour conditions, and he gave no indication that in any other part of the world less favourable conditions exist than in the case of Russia. My hon. and gallant Friend professes a great enthusiasm for the British Empire, but those who have been in various parts of the British Empire know perfectly well that in some parts, owing to the low productivity of labour and the other conditions surrounding the lives of people in those parts of the Empire, rates of wages, hours of labour and conditions generally are far worse than amongst the industrial classes of Russia. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] In India, Africa and the West Indies you will find conditions even worse than those existing amongst the industrial classes of Soviet Russia—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite are honest, they will be anxious to deal with goods produced by forced labour whether produced in Russia or in the British Empire. But that is not the proposal which my hon. Friend has brought forward.
As a matter of fact, all this tirade about forced labour in Russia, particularly with regard to timber, is simply a ramp in order to prejudice the marketing of Russian timber in this country, and, so far as the sale of Russian products generally is concerned, it is obvious that the Russians themselves would be extremely pleased if world conditions enabled them to get a higher price than they are able to get for their products. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Russians are deliberately building up a system in order to dump goods in this country at the lowest possible price. Why should they do anything of the kind? They buy our machinery from places like the city of Lincoln and pay for this machinery with the money received from the sale of their goods in this country, and it is ridiculous to suggest they are using forced or prison labour in order to send goods into this country at a low price. This is simply a propagandist
effort in order to stir up ill-will and hostility, and to prevent the development of possible economic relations. This is the kind of thing which does great harm to the people who are engaged in Anglo-Russian trade, and who want a different atmosphere in which to develop business involving long-term credits. I would like to quote from the "Manchester Guardian" of 11th February of this year, from a letter written by Dr. E. A. Ferguson, former Medical Inspector of Lumber Camps in Northern Canada. Ho says:
Will you allow me to make a few comments on one of the affidavits which accompany Commander Carlyon Bellairs's letter to the Premier, as reported in your issue of the 9th? I hold no brief for the Soviet Government, but to one who has been medical inspector of lumber camps in Northern Canada, a region similar both in climate and flora to Northern Russia, the whole affidavit appears to have been written by someone who knows nothing of lumbering or lumber camps. In the first place, the writer says these Russian camps are situated where the soil is frozen more or less the whole year. Then he save that the men work from five in the morning till eight in the evening. As the sun rises in these regions in the winter-time at nine in the morning and sets at four in the afternoon, the men must be working for eight hours in total darkness, and that in a dense forest! Then he says a man must cut down thirty-five trees a day. A good timber country will average about thirty-five trees to the acre, trees worth cutting, so a man clears an acre a day! And these trees are to be cut at soil level. You might imagine a man sawing down a tree at soil level in the summer time, but not in the winter, with six feet of

snow on the ground and everything frozen solid."

That is from a man who was the former Medical Inspector of Lumber Camps in Northern Canada, and who is by no means prejudiced in favour of Soviet Russia. My hon. and gallant Friend who made this attack upon the importation of Russian goods into this country, might have been warned by a statement recently issued by a very great friend of his, Dr. Eduard Luboff, who runs an information bureau in this country with reference to Russian affairs. It was to this effect:
Offers of affidavits and sworn declarations from escaped Soviet prisoners are reaching this country from Finland, Poland and other countries. The majority of these affidavits are fictitious, and British politicians and business men are warned against purchasing these 'documents.'
The Editor of this Service has recently examined a number of these declarations, and he has found them unreliable and misleading.
I say that the whole of this ramp about forced labour conditions in Russia is simply an endeavour to prejudice the sale of Russian goods, and stop the development of trade as between Russia and this country. Therefore, I hope that the House will reject this Motion.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the importation of goods made by foreign forced labour.

The House divided: Ayes, 137; Noes, 166.

Division No. 218.]
AYES.
[4.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cluse, W. S.
Gower, Sir Robert


Atholl, Duchess of
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Grace, John


Atkinson, C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Granville, E.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colman, N. C. D
Groves, Thomas E.


Balniel, Lord
Colville, Major D. J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cooper, A. Duff
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Beaumont, M. W.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Berry, Sir George
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hanbury, C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harbord, A.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hartington, Marquess of


Boyce, Leslie
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Briscoe, Richard George
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Butler, R. A.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Campbell, E. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hurd, Percy A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Foot, Isaac
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Christie, J. A.
Gould, F.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Penny, Sir George
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Thompson, Luke


Longden, F.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Thomson, Sir F.


Lymington, Viscount
Remer, John R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


McElwee, A.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Train, J.


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Marjoribanks, Edward
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wells, Sydney R.


Marley, J.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somerset, Thomas
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)



Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


O'Connor, T. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Commander Locker-Lampson and


Peake, Captain Osbert
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)
Sir Basil Peto.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Horrabin, J. F.
Pole, Major D. G.


Arnott, John
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Ayles, Walter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Barnes, Alfred John
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Barr, James
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Benson, G.
Lathan, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sandham, E.


Bowen, J. W.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sawyer, G. F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.


Bromfield, William
Lawson, John James
Sherwood, G. H.


Brooke, W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shield, George William


Brothers, M
Leach, W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shinwell, E.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cameron, A. G.
Lees, J.
Simmons, C. J.


Cape, Thomas
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Compton, Joseph
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sorensen, R.


Cove, William G.
Lunn, William
Stamford, Thomas W.


Daggar, George
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Strauss, G. R.


Dallas, George
McEntee, V. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McKinlay, A.
Thorne, W. (West Ham Plaistow)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Denman, Hon. R D.
McShane, John James
Tillett, Ben


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Dukes, C.
Manning, E. L.
Toole, Joseph


Duncan, Charles
Mansfield, W.
Tout, W. J.


Ede, James Chuter
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Marcus, M.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Fred
Vaughan, David


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mathers, George
Viant, S. P.


Elmley, Viscount
Maxton, James
Walker, J.


Freeman, Peter
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morgan. Dr. H. B.
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Morley, Ralph
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Gill, T. H.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mort, D. L.
West, F. R.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Muff, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, Hugh
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Hardie, George D.
Oldfield, J. R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wise, E. F.


Hayday, Arthur
Palin, John Henry
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hayes, John Harvey
Paling, Wilfrid



Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Palmer, E. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Herriotts, J.
Perry, S. F.
Mr. R. A. Taylor and Miss Wilkinson.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion



Hopkin, Daniel
Picton-Turbervill, Edith



Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The object of this Bill is to extend for a further period of five years the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. As will be remembered, that Act arose out of representations submitted by local authorities in rural areas to the effect that the grants for the erection of new houses were not wholly suitable to the circumstances of those areas. These local authorities say that what was required was a grant towards the expenses of reconstruction and improvement of existing houses for farm workers and other persons of similar economic condition, the problem in many rural areas being, it was said, not so much that there was a shortage of houses as that the existing houses required to be modernised and supplied with the recognised conveniences. Considerable advantage has been taken of its provisions, and it has been the means of providing improved and healthier housing accommodation for a large number of rural workers. Much of the work that has been done under the Act has consisted of the introduction of water, baths, and W.C's. into houses; the provision of sculleries; the renewal of defective roofs and floors; the adoption of measures to do away with dampness, and the provision of larger windows to permit of better lighting and ventilation. Many examples of actual cases showing what has been done could be given if time permitted.
It may be mentioned that assistance is not allowed to be given in respect of works of ordinary repair except in so far as these are incidental to or connected with works of reconstruction and improvement. Financial assistance may be given by the local authorities in accordance with schemes approved by the Central Departments. The assistance may take the form of grants or loans, or partly by grant and partly by loan. The amount of assistance which the local
authority may give by way of grant is limited by the Act to two-thirds of the estimated cost of the works of improvement, and is further subject to a maximum of £100 per house. No assistance is given where the estimated cost of the works to be executed is less than £50 per house, or where the capital value of the house after improvement exceeds £400. The local authority may give assistance by way of grant either by a lump sum payment after the completion of the works or by means of an annual payment spread over a period not exceeding 20 years. This period of 20 years corresponds with the period during which certain special conditions laid down in the Act must be complied with by persons receiving grants. These conditions, in effect, provide that the house during that period must not be occupied except by a person whose income is such that he would not ordinarily pay a rent in excess of that paid by agricultural workers. Further, an owner cannot, in respect of improvements, increase the rent by more than 3 per cent. on the sum which he himself has to pay for the works of improvements, after deducting the amount of the grant. The farm servant in Scotland does not as a rule pay any rent, and, accordingly, he is not charged anything extra on his improved house. Information obtained from certain counties appears to indicate that, in a number of cases of people outside the special category of farm servants, the permitted increase for houses occupied by workers has not been made, while in others the increase has been made up to 3 per cent. Provision is made for the recovery of the grant paid in the event of any breach of the conditions to which I have referred.
The assistance by way of grant is ordinarily given by way of lump sum payments, and local authorities finance such payments by means of loans spread over 20 years. The average grant given by Scottish local authorities has worked out, in the course of the five years for which the Act has been in operation, at £86 per house, and in England the corresponding figure is £78 per house. Towards these grants the Exchequer contributes one-half, in the form of an annual payment spread over a period of 20 years. A useful provision of the Act, so far as Scotland is concerned, is one
that enables the grant to be given to small landholders. Applications had been approved, at 31st December last, for 431 houses of small landholders in Scotland.
Each year has seen a progressive increase in the number of applications made for grants, and in the number of houses covered by approved applications. For example, at 31st December, 1927, a year after the Act had been in operation the numbers of houses included in approved applications were 281 in Scotland and 151 in England, or a total of 432. By December, 1928, these figures had risen to 1,396 houses in Scotland and 1,316 in England, a total of 2,712. By December, 1929, the figures had again risen to 3,518 houses in Scotland and 2,510 in England—a total of 6,028; and by December, 1930, they had risen to 6,960 houses in Scotland and 4,049 in England, or a total of just over 11,000.
The Act, as I have stated, was passed with the object of improving the housing accommodation in rural areas, and it is therefore interesting to note that, of the 33 county councils in Scotland, 32 have had schemes of assistance approved, and the remaining one has decided to adopt a scheme. In addition, schemes have been approved from 28 burghs. In England, I am informed, schemes have been approved from 297 authorities, including 46 county councils and 146 rural district councils. I would like to take this opportunity of impressing on local authorities, in the event of this Act being extended, that they should be careful, in their administration of the Act, to see that houses in respect of which applications for assistance are made to them are capable of being really fitted for habitation, and that grants are not given for houses which are not worth improving. When this Act was first introduced, there were some of us who had grave doubts—[Interruption]—and there are some of my friends who still have grave doubts; and, in order that hon. Members opposite may be under no misapprehension, I would point out that the reason for our misgivings was the danger of these grants being given for houses which were not worth improving.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman know of any case in which things have gone wrong in this way?

Mr. ADAMSON: Complaints have reached me from people who have some knowledge of what they are talking about, but the right hon. Gentleman need not be under any misapprehension—?

Sir K. WOOD: Have those complaints been investigated?

Mr. ADAMSON: Now that we are responsible for extending the Act, we will take very good care that these complaints will be very few in the future. We shall take care to impress upon local authorities the need for seeing that no grants are given unless in the case of houses which are worth improving. I would call the attention of county councils and local authorities to the statutory obligation which rests on them to cause a systematic inspection to be made of the housing conditions in their areas. Unless this is done, defective conditions in rural areas cannot be known, and the local authorities are not in a position to put in operation the powers necessary to secure improvement by the owners. The Housing Act of last year definitely laid it down that where a local authority, on consideration of a report by their medical officer of health or sanitary inspector, or other information in their possession, are satisfied that a house is in any respect unfit for human habitation, they must either call on the owner to carry out any works necessary to make the house fit for habitation, or take steps to have the house closed or demolished. I trust that the local authorities will not allow negotiations to drag on indefinitely, but will, failing prompt action on the part of an owner to comply with the statutory notice, put in force their powers to compel compliance with such notice.
I am aware that, before this discussion finishes, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), particularly may accuse me, in moving the extension of this of Parliament, of ploughing with his heifer. I would remind him that more than once he and his friends have ploughed with ours; I have charged him before with ploughing with mine. The limitation of the class of person who is to occupy these improved houses is a feature of the Act which, I am bound to confess, has a special attraction for me. I have always considered that the housing problem is largely a rent problem, and that, when
we had built a large number of houses under the Addison, the Chamberlain and the Wheatley Acts, the rents charged for those houses, running as they do from £16 to £35 or thereabouts, have been beyond the reach of a large number of the working classes for whom they were originally intended, and in many cases these houses are to-day occupied by the fairly well-to-do. By our Slum Clearance Act, to which I would call the attention of my hon. Friends opposite, we have set out to remedy that by providing a similar class of house at a much lower rent, running from £12 to £16 per house—a considerable reduction on the rents charged for the houses under the other Acts that I have named. In order that time may be given for the operation of that Act to be developed to such an extent as to provide completely for working-class requirements, we propose that the machinery of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act shall be extended for another period of five years.

Sir K. WOOD: We are much indebted to the Secretary of State for Scotland for the very clear and precise statement which he has just given to the House. I particularly welcome it, because this is my first experience of finding the right hon. Gentleman in charge of a Bill which affects both Scotland and England; and, as one would perhaps expect after hearing such a speech, we find him really in supreme command and control, at any rate for the moment. I confess that I have been rather puzzled lately as to the responsibility of the Minister of Health, and also of the Secretary of State for Scotland, with regard to housing in this country. I heard the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) informing the House only last week of visits paid, in relation to housing affairs in England, to the Lord Privy Seal; but I hope, and no doubt the Minister of Health will assure us before the end of this discussion, that the Minister of Health, not in his individual capacity but as Minister of Health, still remains in charge of housing operations, and is responsible to this House for his housing policy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs stated that he thought the Lord Privy Seal was in a better position to deal with housing proposals, and give them their due value, because
he had no officials round him. I do not share that view, and we have had from the Secretary of State for Scotland today a statement which I think justifies us in thinking that he is seized of the position and is exercising control at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned.
I want, in the first place, to thank the Government, and particularly the Patronage Secretary, for placing this Bill first on the Order Paper to-day, because a number of us gladly welcome the opportunity, as I think the House generally will, of returning to a discussion on one of the most important aspects of the housing question, namely, the rural housing position; and I propose, in commending and supporting the proposals of the Government, to spend a short time in ascertaining whether I think the House is right in adopting them. One has only to look at the present position in the rural areas, at any rate in England, to see the necessity for some action on the part of the Government in regard to this matter. There is a more authoritative statement so far as England is concerned in the last report of the Ministry of Health, which makes this admission on page 79:
The problem of providing a suitable house for the agricultural worker at a rent proportionate to his wages remains acute in many areas.
I think that is undoubtedly true. Reference is also made to the fact that:
Unhappily the agricultural labourer is often seeking a house in competition with more highly paid persons from neighbouring towns. The resources of rural district councils may be limited and many authorities fear that they will be unable to justify the burden which greater activity, coupled with small resources, would throw upon the ratepayers.
In a further interesting account of the present position there is set out a table, which anyone who is interested in rural housing might very well study, showing what progress has been made. Again, it shows that it has been private enterprise without State assistance which has shouldered the greater burden, if it can be so called, of rural housing and that since 1924 private enterprise in rural districts has built over 160,000 houses while local authorities—not that I am disparaging their efforts for a moment, but in order that we may get proper proportion and focus of the situation—have contributed some 35,000. That shows one
aspect of the matter, at any rate. I could not understand the statement of the Minister of Health in February that the housing policy of the Government is contained in the Act of 1924 and the Act of 1930, as to which we have been asked to indulge in so many prophecies. The Government, apparently, are relying on their Acts of 1924 and 1930—at any rate, they were in February, but, as their policy varies from day to day, I am somewhat uncertain. So far from relying on what the right hon. Gentleman said was the policy of the Government, we find ourselves to-day having to make an extension of this Act, and we have also to note that, in fact, the greatest contribution that is being made to the assistance of rural England in relation to housing is also omitted from the Government's present policy, and that is the encouragement of private enterprise.
Optimist as I am, I never thought I should live to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland make the speech that he has done upon the Conservative Rural Workers Act. I hope to live to hear a similar testimonial from the Minister of Health. It is most encouraging to read the financial memorandum that has been produced by the two Ministers. It will cheer up the author of the Act to hear that there is evidence that, after an initial period of comparative inactivity, steadily increasing advantage is being taken of its provisions. What the right hon. Gentleman is proposing, although he has been some little time in getting at it, is that this Act should be extended for the very considerable period of five years. All of us on this side of the House welcome his announcement. We hope increasing use will be made of this very valuable Act of Parliament, and anything that we can do to assist the Government in their endeavours to promote it still further, both in England and Scotland, we shall desire to do, because undoubtedly it has very much to commend it.
It is based upon the principle of giving preference to the workers in the rural districts and of public money going substantially to the tenants and not to the landlords. It enables houses to be reconditioned by bringing them up to modern standards by means of a financial stimulus. It limits the class of house
that is to be reconditioned, so as to help the agricultural labourer. It lays down that the alterations to be made are to be substantial and that financial assistance may be given either by way of grant or loan, and conditions are made which restrict the rent and limit the class of occupants. I am very glad, from the particulars with which the Minister of Health supplied me, that we can commend a good many efforts that are being made by various county councils, and we hope their example will be followed by a good many other local authorities as well. In this statement, which shows the number of dwellings for which assistance has been given or promised at 31st December, 1930, I find that Devon is responsible for giving assistance in 523 cases, Gloucester is responsible for 168, Norfolk 229, Southampton 236, Suffolk East 190, and in all the total for England and Wales is over 4,000. That is some contribution to the difficulties of the rural areas.

Mr. HURD: Is that county councils and rural districts?

Sir K. WOOD: No, it is county councils only. At first sight it appears remarkable that the Government are introducing these proposals, and there may be some difficulty with hon. Members opposite in accepting them. The Treasury Bench has become a penitent form, and it is a very pleasing spectacle to see Cabinet Ministers in that salutary but pleasing role. I am very glad we have the honour of the presence of the Minister of Health, because it is only fair to reflect that he is one of the intellectuals of the Labour party. He gave us some very striking statements about thee proposals when the Bill was introduced. I shall be very glad to hear him publicly recant them a little later in the Debate. He said the Bill was an attempt to make the land safe for the landlords. [An HON. MEMBER: "So it was!"] The hon. Member forgets that this is a proposal to extend it for five years. The right hon. Gentleman said this Measure was virtually a rural landlords' out-relief Bill. Five more years for the rural landlords' out-relief Bill! He said it was a dole to the landlord. He said it was a Bill that was going to fasten the tied cottage system, which was one of the greatest abuses of
the countryside, round the neck of the agricultural worker. Another five years round their neck!
He went further. He said it was robbery of the public funds. The robbery is to go on for another five years. He said it was a tinker's Bill and not a housing Bill. He said that under the guise of a title which was most deceiving—it is the same title that is being continued for five years—it sought to confer direct pecuniary benefit upon the most spendthrift class of the community, who happened to be the strongest supporters of the Conservative party. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman, having abandoned all hope of getting any support from the labouring classes in the constituencies, is now endeavouring to approach Conservatives by continuing the Act for five years. He also said it was the most amazing piece of class legislation that we have had and that it was full of deceptions.
It violates what we believe is an essential principle, that public money should not be devoted to the interests of private gain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2854, Vol. 198.]
It is a very sad thing. I remember that so convinced were the Socialist party of the injustice of the Bill that they actually produced the Prime Minister, and he made a speech. It is true that he had not much knowledge of the Bill, as a perusal of the speech will show, He said:
It is a good sound principle of public policy which is being violated by this Bill… We are opposed to private ownership being maintained at the public expense."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; cols. 2900–1, Vol. 198.]
5.0 p.m.
I liked also to see that he called it "a landlords' Measure." I cannot leave this particular part of my observations with out referring to the Secretary of State for Scotland. We always look to him for some consistency, but he actually went into the Lobby and voted against this Bill on the Third Reading, with the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, to whom also we all look for consistency. That is just a little resume of what happened on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House.
Supporters of the Government may ask why, in face of all these statements of
members of the present Government, this Bill should be introduced. I do not think the Government could have adopted any other course. There are only two portions of policy which they have for dealing with the rural areas. One is the 1924 Act and the other is the 1930 Act, which they say is going to do such wonderful things, just as they said the 1924 Act was going to do. If you look at the position in the rural areas, it is no wonder that the Socialist Government are turning to a Conservative Act of Parliament for some assistance, because there has been a very considerable fall in the number of houses built in the agricultural parishes of England and Wales, and, instead of things getting better under the Socialist Government, which is full of so much energy and so many denunciations of other people, they are getting worse. The number of houses built under the 1924 Act in the agricultural parishes of England and Wales has fallen by over 1,000 since the Labour Government assumed office, and since they have been kept in office by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) and his Friends below the Gangway. The longer they are in, the fewer houses there are built in the agricultural areas. For instance, in 1929 there were 3,816 built, and in 1930 the figures had fallen to 2,989.
Those figures ought to have been given on the Vote of Censure the other night, because the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was then endeavouring to defend his action by saying that the Lord Privy Seal had been in office for only a few weeks. Well, the Minister of Health has been in office for a good many more weeks than that. He has had a full opportunity. He has his own Act of Parliament, and he cannot put any blame, after two years, on his predecessor. Nothing has been refused him, and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northern Cornwall goes down and defends himself in Cornwall this week-end, I hope he will give some account as to why he is supporting the Government in this matter.
There are many other defects in the Wheatley Act. I was very much interested to hear the Secretary of State for Scotland reading to us how the poor agricultural labourers could not afford
to pay the rents. He has been a long while thinking about that, because I think he was in the House when we were told that the Wheatley Act was introduced for that very purpose. What is the result? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember this, because he might like to tone down that speech a little, in view of what does happen after various statements that he makes. What has happened so far as the Wheatley Act is concerned? It is true that there have been fewer houses built, but has there been any material difference between the rents under the Wheatley Act and those under the Chamberlain Act? I gather from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he has come definitely to the conclusion that the agricultural workers are not able to pay the rents and yet there is a very heavy charge on the public funds under the Wheatley Act. We were told that the reason why there was to be an additional subsidy, and the reason why a great economist like the right hon. Member for North Cornwall voted for it, was on the definite understanding there was going to be some proper return for the agricultural labourer; yet we have this very considerable charge on public funds, and no one can look with any pride—I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman at any rate to look with any pride—upon the results that have been achieved.
Unfortunately, under the Wheatley Act, there was no condition made as to the people who were going to occupy the houses, and I think it is true—the Minister of Health will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—that there is a very large number of instances in the country where it has not been the agricultural labourer who has got into a Wheatley house which has been built at great public expense, but the week-end town dweller who has come down and taken it. I was very glad indeed to hear the Secretary of State emphasize the advantage of the Conservative Act, because one of the great benefits of that Act was that it secured fairly to the people who really ought to have the advantage of this public money what we all desired, and that is one of the great distinctions between the two Acts of Parliament.
During the course of the Debate the other day, but after I had spoken, so that
I had not an opportunity of referring to it, I heard it stated that we must blame the local authorities for this. I hope the Minister of Health will be able to give us an assurance to-day that further efforts will be made, in connection with this Act of Parliament which we are extending, to stimulate and encourage the local authorities. I hope that he and the Parliamentary Secretary will hold conferences with them and put the merits of this Act of Parliament, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) before them. He could not be better employed. He should spur them on to follow the example of those authorities which are already taking active steps in this matter. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not go about blaming the local authorities, because I would like to read them a statement which was made on that subject. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs made a very extraordinary statement. He said, as regards rural housing:
It is no use depending upon the county councils."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1931; col. 419, Vol. 251.]
I suppose he would like to tear up the whole of the work of the local authorities in connection with housing, and follow the scheme of the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir T. Walters), to have a national housing board and build—how many houses was it?—200,000, at no cost at all to the ratepayers of the country. That is a very interesting suggestion, and I shall be very glad to hear more about it, after the Government have very carefully examined it. But who said this about the local authorities, referring to the country as a whole and the general housing position:
We do not blame the bulk of local authorities. As a whole they have responded magnificently to the appeal of the Minister.
These are public-spirited authorities. It may be said that that is done because of the superior attractions of the 1930 Act. That has stirred up the hearts of the local authorities, but not with regard to the past, and you cannot say that about their past efforts. Let me read another statement:
Hon. Members opposite seemed to think I should have a hard task in justifying the housing programme of the Government. They could not have listened very carefully to the statement of my right hon. Friend. We have reason to thank the local authori-
ties for their response and to know that they are making a considerable advance, and no Parliamentary Secretary ever had an easier task than I have in closing this Debate in explaining our hopes in regard to housing, which are founded on present performances and not on vague promises."—[OFFCIAL REPORT, 14th April 1931; cols. 161–2, Vol. 251.]
Who said that? Was it some Tory supporting the local authorities of the country? No, it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, speaking on the 14th April. How many days was that ago? It was a week ago. I hope no one will get up and say that the failure of the Wheatley Act is due to the bad behaviour of the local authorities, because this statement is founded on present performances. The undertaking that was given in regard to housing by the Lord Privy Seal was this. He said:
If there are rural local authorities which either cannot or will not, for any reason whatever, fulfil their statutory obligations, then, on health and sanitary grounds alone, it will clearly be the duty of the Government to consider remedial measures."[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1931; col. 384, Vol. 251.]
That does not take us very much further, and, therefore, I think we can assume that it is the present considered judgment of the Government that no great blame can be cast upon the local authorities of the country so far as progress under the Wheatley Act is concerned. In those circumstances, it is not surprising that to-day, with the state of housing in the rural areas that I have indicated, the Government have turned to a Conservative Act of Parliament and are asking the House to renew it for another period of five years. I hope that the Government will feel assured that in the step they are taking they will have the general support of the House. It has been a disappointment to me that in a large number of cases the local authorities have not acted more vigorously in connection with this particular Act of Parliament which we are now seeking to renew, and I know that it has been a source of considerable disappointment to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston. We are glad to see that this Act is now being gradually taken up, but, candidly, I think that a great deal more ought to be done and can be done by local authorities in connection with rural housing. I hope that the Minister will, if he can
spare the time, carry out a vigorous compaign up and down the country in favour of this Act. It certainly secures houses and cottages for the agricultural labourer which the Wheatley Act has not done. Therefore, I find myself in the unusual position of heartily congratulating the Government upon the course they are taking, commending them for their efforts, and hoping that this is a sign of repentance on the part of the present Minister.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: We have listened this afternoon to an admirable exposition of the art of Parliamentary badinage, with which we are becoming increasingly familiar, in which statesmen imagine that they can dispose of great and serious social problems by flinging old quotations at each other's heads. The right hon. Gentleman varied his statement this afternoon by some evangelistic references. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend on the penitent form. I suggest that both Front Benches might avail themselves of the opportunity of repentance, as regards housing at any rate. I desire to support the renewal of the Act. I do not know what, was said on the last occasion, as I had not the opportunity of being here. So serious is the position that, no matter how small and how ineffective, and in some respects how pitiful, are the results, the Government would be wrong to throw away any opportunity of assisting to mitigate the evils of this really serious problem.
I am interested particularly in one thing, and that is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been selected to be in charge of this Measure. Why? This Act which we are about to renew, has been made partially successful only in Scotland. The reason for that, I suggest, is that if you give Scotsmen a chance of working even an Act as imperfect as this progeny of my right hon. Friend, and you link with it some opportunity of getting assistance from the Treasury, you will find a great deal more use being made of it than is made of it by their neighbours South of the Border. It is a very remarkable position. In Scotland, which has a population of round about 5,000,000, there have been 6,960 applications and grants. In England, with a population round about 36,000,000, there
have been only 4,049 applications and grants. I have been making a rough calculation, and it is pretty clear that if in England there had been anything like a practical effort to make use of this very imperfect instrument, there would have been no fewer than 35,000 applications for grants. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues rejoice so much about this Act. What has it done? It has not been used, except quite fractionally, in England, so that there must have been some justification of the criticisms, if I may apply so mild a term, or some of the epithets which were addressed to the Bill when it was before the House.

Mr. HURD: The right hon. Gentleman has only given partial figures.

Sir D. MACLEAN: Whether they are partial or not, they were the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

Mr. HURD: You have taken away certain counties in England.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am dealing with figures given by the right hon. Gentleman as representing the exact position, which is also justified by other statistics which I have by me. I hope that much greater use will be made of this Measure, because I am old-fashioned enough to believe that there is a good deal to be said for private enterprise. This country does not move upon purely theoretical lines at all. It moves slowly, but ever surely towards a wider measure of public control on great public matters. To scoff at the maintenance and development of private enterprise applied to a very serious social problem is foolish in the extreme. There are some very reasonable proposals in this Act. The owner of a cottage can expend up to, say, £150 upon it. I think the tenant is fairly well protected. For 20 years the rent of the cottage cannot be altered except to the extent of 3 per cent. upon the outlay which the landlord or the owner of it has incurred. You cannot increase the rent by the amount of the public subsidy. Another most important thing is that for the term of 20 years the cottage can only be let to members of the agricultural community or to those who are earning wages similar to the
wages of those who are working in agriculture itself.
I cannot make out why greater use has not been made of this Measure. It is a very great step in advance, but up to now all that has happened and could happen is that the county councils and rural district councils have been making their surveys, and, having made their surveys, they will begin to elaborate the next phase. It will be years even under the most vigorous administration before the principle of the housing of the working classes in the rural districts is adequately grappled with. Therefore, I welcome the renewal of this Act and the stimulation of any form of enterprise which will be of assistance.
I listened to what my right hon. Friend said, beating his breast with joy, as to the results of the administration of the Tory Act—about 160,000 houses under private enterprise, compared with about 40,000 with public assistance. I should like him to tell me what was the rent of those houses. Unless you can provide cottages at rents of at most from 7s. or 8s. a week, you are not touching the gravest part of this problem. I am sure that the rents of the houses to which he referred must run to 10s. or 12s. a week, and I believe that thousands of them are used by dwellers in town who desire to make use of the amenities of the countryside to the exclusion of those for whom these houses were designed and on whose behalf immense sums of public money are being poured out. It is one of the gravest scandals, as those who know anything about the countryside will know, especially in Scotland, to find districts where young people cannot marry because of the housing position. If you look into the houses you see the scandalous conditions under which they live, and yet a couple of doors further down you may see a furnished house with nobody living in it, perhaps in the occupation of some people, say, in Edinburgh, who come down occasionally to visit it. It is that sort of thing which is creating the gravest social unrest in the countryside, and rightly so. We want to see that cottages in such a lamentable state of disrepair are made possible of reconstruction. I am alarmed because there have been only 4,049 grants in England after five years' administration of the Act. There must be something wrong somewhere. Is it the administra-
tion? Is it the landlords? What is wrong? The Act contains real opportunities. They are utilised in Scotland, and why are they not utilised in England?

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman referred to a statement which I read, and he realises that such statements have a very bad effect upon local authorities up and down the country. It may be that political bias is introduced into discussions. I am sorry to say that in a good many cases those statements were relied upon and believed by a great number of people.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I do not know what may be the reason, but I assume that people are able to distinguish between mere political bias and a good business proposition. Here is a real opportunity for something to be done, and to say that it is merely because of political prejudice that nothing has been done does not carry the matter very far. I have an example from the clerk of a county council, showing how the Act would work:
The following is an example of how the Act would work in regard to a cottage let at 4s. a week and which has to be enlarged or improved at an estimated cost of £150. Towards this £150 the county council make a free grant of £100 and the owner must pay £50. The owner can charge interest on his £50 at the rate of 3 per cent. That would be £1 10s. per annum. The rent of the cottage would therefore be 4s. 7d. per week.
I do not care one bit what line people may take in saying that this is private enterprise or assisted private enterprise. If that can be done in thousands of cases, it is worth doing. I am in entire agreement with the policy of the Minister of Health in regard to doing all that is possible under Acts on the Statute Book. The county councils in regard to rural houses have been given the responsibility of themselves making their survey. That is one great and notable change. Then, the rural districts councils are required to furnish periodically reports of their housing activities. These matters will be subject to Parliamentary criticism. This makes a great and fundamental change in the responsibilities of the county councils to this House in regard to rural housing. I hope that whatever Government or Governments may be in power in the course of the next five years, this very serious matter of not only the defects but the scandal of the housing in our
rural areas will receive some measure of redress from the Acts of Parliament that are now on the Statute Book. There has been an unfair lack of drive to remedy the conditions of rural housing and there has been a lack of interest in the shocking conditions of rural housing throughout England, and I welcome the renewal of this Act because it is something that can be developed and can lead to a useful approach towards the solution of the problem.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): After the speech of the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), it may be well that I should speak now. We have had a typical speech from the right hon. Gentleman, characterised with his usual air of jauntiness, and a few quotations. I have never known him deliver a speech which has not been primarily composed of an air of jauntiness and some ancient quotations. I withdraw nothing of what I said about this Act on its passage through the House. I did not ask for the Act in its present form. I opposed it in all its stages, and, if I were in Opposition now and a Bill of this kind came along again, I should do precisely the same thing. I therefore make no apology for the criticism of the Bill that I made when it first came before the House. The situation now is that it is on the Statute Book as an Act. There are many Acts on the Statute Book of which I have disapproved, but which I have to administer. I have done my best to administer this Act, little as I liked its origin. I have even made it more successful than did my predecessor.
If there is one single ray of hope and if there is one single thing in this Act which can help the rural worker in regard to housing, am I to deny him those facilities? Certainly not. When we come down to the substance of the matter, I do not understand this paean of praise about this wretched little Measure, with its poor paltry result, that we have had from the right hon. Member for West Woolwich. Measured by the size of the problem and the hopes of its promoters, the Act has been a failure. [Interruption.] I have explained once, and I will explain again, that so long as there is an instrument, however imperfect it may be, that can be used to help one single farm worker's family, I am
prepared to use it. I make a present of that admission to hon. and right hon. Members opposite.
It is true, as the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) said, that the results in England and Wales as compared with Scotland have been extraordinarily small and that the public authorities have built far more new houses than they have assisted in the improvement of old houses. It is not true for the right hon. Member for West Woolwich to say, as he said with an air of irresponsibility, that private enterprise has saved the situation in the rural areas. That is not so. The biggest volume of building that has taken place in the rural areas since the War has taken place under the auspices of the local authorities, under State-assisted schemes, and not under private enterprise. Nor is it true to say that building under the Wheatley Act has declined in recent years. Since I took office a substantial increase, not perhaps a large enough increase, in the amount of the building has taken place in the rural areas under the provisions of the Act of 1924. In England and Wales the operations of the Act have been confined to a very small number of areas. The one county that has achieved results on any substantial scale is the county of Devon, where loans have been made in respect of 523 dwellings. Those figures are more than double the figures of any other English county.
Some of the other counties have made certain progress in operating the Act. Southampton and Essex are among those counties, and they have dealt respectively with 236 and 168 dwellings. Pembroke in Wales has been more active than any other Welsh county. The net result of all these efforts by the county councils and the rural district councils—in Shropshire the rural district councils are operating the Act instead of the county council—has been a total output of some thing over 4,000. Those counties that have operated the Act have made representations for its continuance. They feel that it is performing a service. It is performing a service on lines that I do not approve, although I did say when the Act was passing through this House—the right hon. Member for West Woolwich did not quote this—that there
might be something to be, said for the reconditioning of houses, but that it was a relatively small part of the problem and not the essence of the problem. Those representations having been made by those counties, one is right in saying that those local authorities who feel that there is a use for the Act, should be permitted to use it for a further period. It may be that now the county councils are housing authorities under the Act of 1930 in a sense they were not before and with their new knowledge of the housing problem of their area, they may find a use for this particular method of approach, in conjunction with others, which they have not hitherto realised. It may be that as a result of the Act of 1930 a number of county councils will go further under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. If they do that, they will make a contribution to the solution of the rural housing problem.
I did not believe and I never have believed that this method would prove to be acceptable on a very large scale to the local authorities of this country, but in so far as it can be used to make a practical contribution to the solution of the housing problem in rural areas we ought to give it support. I have done what has been possible to encourage the adoption of the Act during the past few years, but I have been disappointed with the results. I was finally brought round, and whole-heartedly brought round, to agreeing to back a Bill for the extension of the Act of 1926 because of the relative success it had met with in Scotland. That is the real reason why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are here to support the Bill. For what it is worth, within its limitations, narrow as those limitations are, I hope that the Act will be continued and that it may be more fully used.

Mr. HURD: Those of us who are deeply interested in the rural housing problem welcome very heartily the concluding words of the Minister of Health. We welcome also a great deal of what was said by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean), but one cannot help reflecting on how gladly we should have been of that support when we were piloting the Act of 1926 through this House. However, it is more serviceable to think of the future than of the past and to see how this Act can
be made more serviceable for the purpose that Parliament intended. That purpose is quite clear. There seems to be a happy agreement in all quarters of the House, with perhaps one exception, that this Act has proved, up to a certain point, most useful in providing homes for agricultural workers, and at a rent which they can pay. That has not been achieved by any other housing legislation that this House has adopted.
Those who are familiar with English rural areas must have felt depressed, as I have been, when they have visited some of the cottages that still remain in Divisions like my own. One finds a great deal of damp on the walls and one is led upstairs to a bedroom, a poky little room where perhaps three, four or five children have to sleep. An appeal is often made by the labourer's wife when she says: "How can I do my cooking for the family in the poky little accommodation that is given to me?" If such a house had been provided with a scullery and an extra bedroom, and if a damp-course had been put in, as can be done within the scope of this legislation, the home of that farm labourer and his wife would have been greatly improved. Council cottages are quite beyond the reach of most agricultural labourers in respect of rent. They can only be taken by an agricultural labourer who is living with his son or who takes in a lodger. The labourer and his family are unable to afford the rent of these council houses.
It has been said by hon. Members opposite, and I overheard the remark this afternoon, that they are pigsties for agricultural workers. If the hon. Member had had the good fortune to see one of those exhibitions which are going about the country, organised by one of his own political friends, he would have seen the great change for the better that has been brought about in rural England by the operation of this Act, and he would have seen, by photographs, the contrast between the pigsty of the past and the home which the agricultural labourer now has under the operation of this Act. We have also heard something about turning stables into homes. That exhibition would also have shown hon. Members that the stone-built farms in our villages make excellent accommodation which the new
occupants would be loath to dispense with.
Another argument advanced against the Act, particularly in former days, is that it is a bonus to the landlord. In my own area that has been one of the greatest impediments to the successful working of the Act, and it was brought forward when the first application was made to the housing authority in the county of Norfolk. It was said that it was handing over money to a man who had enough money already and who should be able to provide the accommodation. Surely that argument has fallen to the ground in face of the facts given from the Treasury Bench to-day, showing the severe conditions under which State money is provided for the purposes of this legislation. I believe that it is the onerous character of the Act, as bearing upon the owner, which has led to its limited application. In Wiltshire one owner has refused to have applications made for his houses to the county council, because he said that it would immediately become a matter of political animus and that he would be losing money all the time.
It has been represented to me that the 20 years obligation in respect of the owner under the Act is too long. I suppose that we cannot amend the Act in that respect, but, if we could limit it to 15 years, and that at the end of that time the owner was able to revert to the proper economic rent, instead of tying it to the limited rent under the Act, it would help to an extended use of the Measure. I agree, from my own observations, that this Act, in the words of one of the county councils which are operating it most successfully,
is one of the best and most helpful Housing Acts that have appeared on the Statute Book for many years.
The point I want to make is as to the means that should be used to bring the Act more into operation. We have had the figure of 11,000 houses which have been brought under this legislation, and I must ask the House to remember that although this figure may seem small it is necessary to visualise it from the point of view of a village. If you have four cottages in a village which are manifestly unfit for habitation they are a festering sore, and appear much worse than four houses in an urban area. If you take these four cottages and put them into
a good condition you are raising the whole social atmosphere of the village to a degree which would not operate in a large town. From that point of view, and if you think of how many villages must have been affected by the number of 11,000 houses completed or approved, hon. Members will be able to realise the wide operations of the Act. When it is also remembered that there are probably six or seven inhabitants to a cottage it is evident that you are dealing with a large and substantial population.
It is true that in the rural areas there is a slow moving mind. County councils are slow in the operation of their administrative machinery, they meet once a quarter, and the rural district councils are not more rapid than the county councils. You have to deal with facts as you find them, and if we are all agreed that this is a Measure which can be of real service in providing the agricultural worker with the home for which he can pay is not this an opportunity to join together to promote further and fuller use of the Act? How can it best be done? The late Parliamentary Secretary has suggested conferences. I am all in favour of conferences, but I should like them to be based on facts. I do not want to see officials coming to the rural areas and talking at large and vaguely. I should prefer that some of those who have actually administered the Act in county council and rural areas were asked to undertake something in the nature of a missionary campaign with the use of the cinema and photographs, and I believe the House would be surprised at the beneficial effect of an effort of that kind. It is most desirable also that they should have the advantage of an illustrative circular from the Ministry of Health.
Let me give an illustration of the kind of success which could be put before a gathering of that sort. The county council of Devonshire have been good enough to supply me with exact details as to how they have made this Act so great a success, and the first point which strikes one is that they at once saw that the Act could not hope to operate with any large measure of success unless there was good will. They immediately got into touch with the rural councils of the
county and said that while no doubt they were disappointed that the administration of the Act had not been put into the hands of the rural councils, yet, as they wanted to make the Act a success, they asked them to come in and help them by the advice of their surveyors and medical officers, who knew the conditions in each village and the kind of pressure that could be brought upon the rather difficult owner. They operated together with good will, and it is surprising the measure of success that has been obtained in Devon. I suggest that the same spirit should be shown in other parts of England.
Something has been said as to the heavy charge upon the rates. The County of Devon, which has carried out the Act with such enormous benefit, has completed and approved over 600 houses, which means a great deal in a county, and the whole of this work has been carried out at a cost of less than one farthing in the pound over 20 years. I do not think that you can hope to bring about a better result than that at so small a cost. I ask that in any conferences the greatest stress should be laid upon the necessity of starting and carrying on in a spirit of good will and harmonious co-operation with rural councils. Take another case, the rural district council of Atcham in Shropshire. There most beneficial work has been carried out, affecting water supply, the sanitary arrangements, the provision of extra bed rooms, the provision of sculleries and prevention of damp. I am certain that if the sort of improvements which have been brought about in two typical areas like the County of Devon and the rural district of Atcham, could be exhibited by photographs or the cinema in those parts which are still sluggish in the operation of this Act, the progress we should be able to make would be very surprising. It is necessary to have object lessons of that kind to persuade not only the local authority but the owners of property.
In their communication the Devon County Council point out that one of the factors in the successful working of the Act has been a realisation by owners of unsatisfactory property that the alternatives are a perpetual bombardment with sanitary notices, an annual expenditure on patchwork, leading to nowhere, with the eventual condemnation of the
house by the local authority. These punitive measures are in the hands of a local authority, but you have also the attraction and encouragement of public money to assist owners to get a decent cottage and avoid a constant drain upon their income. I commend some effective propaganda of this sort, especially in those counties and rural districts which have failed to realise the benefits of this Measure. Here is a great boon to the agricultural worker. I hope that it will be utilised to the full.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I will keep the House only a few moments in discussing a Bill which is, apparently, supported in every part of the House. I have had some experience of putting the Act into force in two counties, and I know the difficulties that have to be encountered in order to get grants and to proceed with the work. I want to press the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd), as to the necessity for the Government to take steps to popularise the Act. The truth is that although they have brought in proposals to renew the Act, the Minister of Health in his speech used the phrase:
Lines of which I myself do not approve.
If the Bill is on lines of which the Minister does not approve, why does he bring it in? It is not dealing fairly with the country or with those who have to operate Acts to pass them in this grudging way. I put it to the Minister and the House that the real reason why this Act has not been pushed throughout the country is that this prejudice has been created. I know about what I am talking. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry may smile, but I live in the country. I know the villages and I have had to carry out these things in my own administration of estates. I have had experience of the prejudice which exists against this Act. It appears to the critics in the rural districts that this is a grant to landlords to enable them to increase the value of their property, and it is not regarded, particularly by members of the Parliamentary Secretary's party on local authorities, throughout the country as a help to housing, but rather as a means of propping up impoverished landlords in dying privileges.
The landlords have really very little interest in spending money upon these houses. Indeed their interest is not to spend money. It is far better, from the point of view of their pockets, to lend the sum they may be ready to lay out on a cottage to the Government at 5 per cent. and to get a 5 per cent. return, than to lay it out at 3 per cent. on cottages where probably the rent will not be raised, or no rent at all and no return. Therefore, if the Government really intend that the Act is to work in future better than it has done in the past, they must take steps to remove the prejudice which, largely owing to their own propaganda about the ownership of land and houses, and in regard to housing schemes, exists in the country districts.
I believe that of all the subsidies which are paid by the Government for the purpose of housing, more results are obtained from the small payments made for the renewal of these cottages, than from any other subsidy. I am doubtful as to how far the subsidies for great housing schemes result in much increase of housing, but from the small sum granted to the landlord to prevent these cottages from going to absolute ruin we really do get a fair return. The money does the work for which it is intended. In present circumstances that work would never be done unless some such scheme as this were adopted by the House. The rural landlords are greatly impoverished by the trend of events. I am not going to apportion blame. They have not the money that they had in the old days to spend on the building of cottages, especially if there is to be no rent received in return. In any case the rent to be charged is limited. Therefore, unless the House is willing to grant this subsidy the work will not be done.
In all the villages that I know there are houses which justify the application of this scheme. There are very few villages that I go through where there are not some houses that require renovating and almost rebuilding. I know some where, fortunately, that might not be said, but they are not as numerous as they ought to be. Those who live in the, country are fond of their country life, and it is not the case that the rural landowners are careless in this matter. I do not make that charge. They have their faults, and I criticise them on
occasion; but they are fond of their districts and they will spend the money if they can possibly do so. This Bill will not solve the rural problem. We want a much larger scheme, such as I was glad to hear outlined in the speech of the Lord Privy Seal in a recent Debate. I do not think the Government will successfully tackle the rural village question until they bring forward some such scheme as that.
At any rate, this scheme will go on all the time. It will renew a house here and there in the villages, and more and more it will be used, if only the Government will put the full weight of their authority behind it, through their officials, through the speeches that they make to their constituents and through the whole operation of their powerful publicity; that is to say if they will only say, "This is a small Measure which will help the agricultural labourers in the villages." It is not, as some hon. Members appear to think, a grant to the landlords to prop them up—not at all. It is a rural subsidy, paid to secure a good house for a rural labourer, and therefore it deserves the support of men of every party. We are always embarking on great schemes in this House, and not a great deal comes of them always; but this is a small matter whereby those living in the country districts can use a subsidy to advantage, and I hope that the Government are not going merely to pass the Bill, but to give it all the weight of their authority, and to push it as if it were one of their own pet schemes.

Earl of DALKEITH: I am very glad that the Governmnt have consented to renew the Act, but I regretted to hear the hint that Members of the Government are individually opposed to it. This is the only Act which applies to particular kinds of houses in the country. The whole benefit of it goes to the workers on the farms or on the land, or to those who have retired from such work. In Scotland already nearly 5,000 families are benefiting under the Act, and another 2,000 will very shortly do so. There have been endless conferences as to how agriculture can be assisted. This is one way, and the very best way, of improving the lives and the conditions of those who work on the land. Very real assistance has been brought to them in the
last five years and very little has been said about it. No doubt the setting of the machinery in operation and the county council schemes took considerable time, and that accounts for the delay in starting the Act during the first two years. At the present time, however, a greatly increased amount of work is being done.
The only advantage to the landlord—it is a real advantage to him—is that he is enabled to carry out a responsibility which otherwise would be impossible—a responsibility which would be one of the foremost charges upon his income, to do his utmost to improve the cottages of those who live on his estate. If improvement and reconditioning of rural cottages were allowed as a maintenance charge to be deducted from taxation there would be less need of a Bill such as this in the case of those larger estates against which, as a rule, the opposition to this Bill is directed. But while the present method of taxation continues the Bill is very necessary. There is a very large gap between those cases where the owner of one or two farms has no means for spending money necessary to improve the cottages, and those larger estates where, in some cases, as much as 12s. 6d. in the pound goes in Income Tax and Super-tax, leaving only 7s. 6d. in the pound, or £100 out of £250 of income, to be spent upon this work or wages of any kind on estates.
In Scotland nearly all the cottages improved under the Act are rent-free houses, but in any case it is clear that there is no prospect of any economic return for the money spent. I ask the Government to give careful consideration to possible methods by which the Act can be carried out on a larger scale. First of all I think they might consider whether a larger proportion of the grants should be paid by the Exchequer rather than by the local authority. At present the local authority pays the grant and recovers 50 per cent. from the Exchequer. The Government might consider amending the Act so that local authorities could recover at least 60 per cent. or even recover a sum equal to double what they would have to pas themselves. That would encourage a number of local authorities to see that the Act was very much more widely used. It would be welcomed by agricultural opinion, and it
would be justified economically, in view of the large expenditure from the Exchequer towards housing in the towns and the share contributed by the taxpayers of rural areas towards the town houses.
The Government might also consider obtaining information from those county councils which have had most experience of the administration of the Act. The Act has entailed much additional work upon the public health staffs of the various county councils, and any simplification of the administration of the Act would be welcomed by local authorities, and might encourage more work to be done. I am sure that we all welcome the official approval which is now given to the Act by all parties in the House. I feel sure that the work under the Act, which increased in amount last year, will be doubled or trebled during the next five years of its operations.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: I think the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) put his finger on the right spot when considering why it was that the Act had not been more successful in its results. It is the spirit of prejudice that was aroused when the Conservatives first brought in the Bill in 1926. What is more deplorable is that the Minister of Health, having really had to alter his convictions on the subject, has indicated it in such a grudging may this evening. He told us that he did not retract one of the statements which he made when the Bill was originally brought in, from which we are to understand therefore that he is proposing to continue what was described as further robbery of public funds, and that more out-relief is to be handed out to rural landlords. How can he expect the Bill to be put into operation successfully if that is the frame of mind in which it is given a send-off? It has created not only a natural echoing among members of local authorities who share the political views of hon. Members opposite, but other members of local authorities and the owners themselves have felt that they were taking on themselves the onus of criticism, of vituperation and denunciation which they did not choose to take. It has come out in this Debate, as we pointed out when the original Bill was brought forward, that there is nothing in it for the landlord at all. I should
like to draw attention to a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) when introducing the original Bill:
The Bill is so drafted that the benefits arising out of this use of public money must go practically entirely to the tenants and not to the landlords."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2842, Vol. 198.]
That is and always has been our case, and indeed that has been our experience. As has been pointed out, there is no inducement to the landlord to put his money in for the miserable return which the Act allows, unless he is doing it with the object of keeping up the value of his estate as a whole, and fulfiling his obligations to his employés, particularly those who fill the lowest-paid jobs such as agricultural workers. We have brought in many fine housing schemes and tried to operate them, with bigger or smaller subsidies, with or without parlour accommodation, with buildings of a greater or less size, but we have not been able to touch the question of rehousing in the rural areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) has pointed out what has been done in Devon in this matter, whereby only one farthing in the LI has been added to the rates. This is the cheapest bargain which this House has made in housing, since we started an advanced housing policy after the War, and at the same time the Act is bringing into the cottages to which it is applied a measure of convenience and happiness.
There is another point which has not been touched upon. We form societies both through Government action, and through private and unofficial action, for preserving the beauties and amenities of our countryside. One thing which is obvious to anyone who goes about the country, in either England, Scotland or Ireland, is that the old buildings—the old cottages and houses—are products of the genius of the place, and are made of materials which exist there. A brick cottage in my part of the West Country is as much an anachronism as would be a stone cottage in those parts of Sussex where they have half-timbered houses. One of the difficulties of housing in rural areas is the cost of the materials necessary in order to preserve that element which is a feature of the landscape. In this Act we give opportunities not for the ruthless housebuilder on a big scale to tear down
worn-out buildings, and put up those new red-brick monstrosities, with asbestos diagonal tiles, which so much disfigure our countryside, but opportunities on the one hand to afford better facilities to the occupiers of the houses, and on the other hand to preserve to some extent the beauty and rural outlook of our villages.
I have had some experience in connection with the reconditioning of houses though not under the provisions of this Act, but the principle is precisely the same, where you have to deal with houses on which thatch needs replacing, which have no bathrooms, no decent accommodation for washing clothes, no water supply laid on to them, and have, perhaps, inconvenient staircases, each staircase taking up half of a little bedroom. It is remarkable how the expenditure of £80 or £100 will transform such buildings. One of the difficulties in connection with this question arises from what was a few years ago a closed subject to hon. Members opposite, but one the importance of which, we are encouraged to think, they are now realising. That is the question of water supply. As the standard of life goes up in town or country the demand for water and the demand for light go up with it, and those are the two big tests of decent accommodation in housing. But the question of supply is very different in the country and in the town. You cannot lay on a supply from the water main or the gas main in the country. You may have certain cottages getting their water supply from a spring, and thus a perfectly new problem arises in that connection in the country. Those who are interested in rural housing have to consider all those matters which come within the scope of the Act.
It is disappointing in the first place to find that the Act has been so little used, and secondly, to find the reason. The occupants of the Treasury Bench have themselves to blame if the Act has been so little used. It is all very well for them to come before us now in the white sheet of penitence, but we have not forgotten the speeches which were made when this Measure was originally introduced. I do not include the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland. He is in a peculiar position, but those of us who followed the Debates of 1926 watched with
some interest how the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Health was going to acquit himself in commending this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman avoided the dilemma. He took a pace to one side, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland stepped forward and filled up the gap.
That is one way of dodging the issue, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland was at pains to point out that the Act had been a success, particularly in Scotland. He also expressed a hope for its further development, but he has not been helped in his aspirations by his right hon. colleague who appeared to feel that his position as a critic of the Act in 1926 was being given away. Accordingly, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has said in effect, "I said that this was robbery and so it was; I said that it was a dole to the landlords, and so it was." But surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not so, and that such statements are not going to help the working of the Act. The right hon. Gentleman must realise, now that he is in office, that what he said so rashly when he was in opposition is not really true. But in order to give a false air of consistency to his position he makes a speech such as we have heard to-day, and then expresses the hope that the Act is going to be worked by the local authorities better than it has been worked in the past. I hope that the local authorities will study the speeches made in this Debate with one exception, and that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: Several hon. Members expressed the opinion that the only test of the Act of 1926 is whether or not it has been successful in providing houses for agricultural workers. I agree that that is a very important test, and perhaps the first test to apply to the Act, but, I cannot agree that it is the only test, or that this House would be right in not looking at the finances of the original Measure. I am surprised indeed to find the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Minister of Health, who appear to have denounced the original Act roundly when it was going through the House, are now asking that
it should be renewed, exactly as it was passed five years ago. I can quite understand their statement that it has done some good but I did not think that they would attempt to continue it, without taking advantage of the opportunity thus presented, of wiping out what they then considered to be bad features of the Act, or dealing with the things which they thought capable of improvement. They have not done so, and to that extent they seem to have placed themselves in a false position.
When the original Act was passed, I thought its finance was bad, and I still think so. I still believe that it is a bonus to landlords, and I ask the House to believe that it is more so in Scotland than in England. That fact is perhaps responsible for what has been pointed out already, namely, that in Scotland the Act seems to have been much more successful than in England. It is interesting to remember that since the original Act was passed, the whole basis of rating has been changed, and, in Scotland, rural rating at any rate has been changed much more drastically than in England. Before the De-rating Act, practically half the rates in Scotland were paid by the landlords. That was the basis upon which the rating system there had been built up, but by that Act the rural landlord was practically wiped off the rate book altogether. When the Housing (Rural Workers) Act was passed, the rural landlord had to pay his share of the sum provided for housing out of the rates. In the new circumstances he pays practically nothing at all, and the whole sum which comes to him under the Act is practically a net subsidy. Therefore, the bonus which he now receives is a great deal more than it was when the Act was passed. A great deal has been made of the fact that, if a subsidy is given to the landlord, at any rate he cannot raise the rent to the tenant or occupier on the basis of that subsidy. But in Scotland there is no control in that way, because there practically all the houses dealt with under this Act are on farms, and the farms are let for lump sums. No sum is allocated by way of rent for individual cottages, and it is quite impossible when the rent of a farm is raised, to say whether it is raised on account of the improvement in cottage accommodation made as a result of the subsidy or not.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: There is no evidence of that.

Major WOOD: The right hon. Gentleman says there is no evidence, but what I am pointing out is that you can have no evidence, and that there is no possibility of preventing a landlord, if he wishes to do so, raising the rent on the basis of the improved housing accommodation. After all, rent is determined, not by what the landlord charges, but by what the tenant is willing to pay, and of course they will pay higher rents when they find that a farm has better accommodation. To that extent we have not the control over these rents which exists in England and, to that extent also, I believe that the finance of the Act is bad. I am sorry that members of the Government, after all the condemnation to which they subjected the Act at an earlier stage should not have taken this opportunity of putting matters on a better and more satisfactory footing. That, however, is not the only fault. I have said that since the Act was passed, the rural landlord has been taken off the rate book. The result is that the basis of rating has become very much narrowed, and the burden which is going to be put on the ratepayers by the extension of this Act, will fall on fewer shoulders. The rating question is going to be much more serious in the future than it has been in the past, and I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had not something to say on that subject. If this Act becomes more popular, as indeed I hope it will, it is going to create a very difficult problem for the rating authorities in the rural districts of Scotland. This is a question which they will have to face very soon.
There is another aspect of this question which I would like the right hon. Gentleman to take into account. Some considerable time ago there were a number of applications before a county council in Scotland. A large number of them were from owners of large landed estates, and the applications went through as a matter of course. One application came from a small farmer of about 60 acres. I was informed at the time that he was originally a farm worker who had worked himself up and had acquired his farm. He was informed, however, that he could not get the subsidy, because he was not an agricultural worker. I should like the right
hon. Gentleman to tell us what is supposed to be meant by the term "agricultural worker." Is a small farmer who works his own farm an agricultural worker within the meaning of the original Act, or are we to understand that the subsidy is to be granted only where the house in question is to be occupied by an employé? That is an important question, because if you exclude the small farmer who owns his own house, you will narrow the whole field of housing. This requires the urgent attention of the Government.
It was interesting to note that the right hon. Gentleman particularly stressed the importance of this Act to smallholding, in so far as it increased the improvement of the housing of smallholders. I do not see why a smallholder should get the advantage of the Act and a small farmer, who happens to be just above the limit of 50 acres, should be deprived of it. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken advantage of the opportunity of this Bill to enlarge the whole scope of the original Act, and to make it applicable to small farmers and persons of that kind. If the right hon. Gentleman had drawn the title of the Bill a little more loosely, he would have been able to give us the opportunity of bringing under the original Act a large number of those who are agricultural workers in the true sense of the word, who will be excluded by the way in which the Bill is drawn. I regret that the Bill has been drawn so tightly in that respect.
In discussing a Bill of this kind, one has to take it in its larger aspects, and ask, will it, on the whole, do an amount of good which is sufficient to neutralise the bad parts of it? No one at the present time could offer any opposition—he would he a bold man if he did-to a Bill which will increase the housing of the rural districts. When we talk about housing, we nearly always talk about housing in the larger districts. That is a great pity, because I am satisfied that there are in many country districts of Scotland and England worse slums than in the large cities. The only difference is that in the case of the county districts, they are usually off the high road, and nobody but the doctor or anyone who has to go in his course of
duty to the houses knows the state to which they have been brought. Here is a Bill which is designed to help rural houses. The Act which it amends has helped it, although it has done so in a bad way and under a bad financial system. The fact that it has helped rural housing means that no one will oppose the Bill to-day.

Mr. BUTLER: The genuinely poor rural areas, particularly of East Anglia, will be glad that so much interest is being paid to the question of rural housing. I come from the county of Essex, which has been mentioned as one of the counties which has taken a genuine part in promoting the success of this Measure. I would like to be assured that the right hon. Gentleman in introducing an extension of the Act for a further period of five years, contemplates it as only part of a great housing policy for the rural areas, and not as the sole measure which the Government propose to introduce to help us to house the rural dwellers as they should be housed. We have had the advantage—or what should be the advantage—of hearing two Ministers of the Crown this afternoon. I was disappointed by the speech of the Minister of Health, because he gave us no outline of a general rural housing scheme of which this small Bill might be but a part. I would prefer to give this Bill my support if I thought that it were part of a great scheme, and not an isolated measure of its own. I realise the benefit the Act has been and the benefit it will be, but it does a small thing only in comparison to what there is to he done in rural areas at the present time.
We in England are sometimes proud of our civilisation and of our standard of living, but when we travel abroad, even in tropical countries, we are always prone to comment upon the superior existence of English men and women at home. It has often struck me when I have travelled through the rural areas of Great Britain, and seen the housing conditions in which our people are obliged to dwell, that they are in many cases infinitely worse than those that exist in foreign countries. The House should realise that we have in the midst of our own British civilisation something of which we should be thoroughly ashamed, and the Government should grapple with
it at once with courage and determination. The conditions which exist in our rural housing are some of the worst that have existed. I have been disappointed with the way in which the Government have tackled rural housing since they have been in power.
I remember sitting through the interminable proceedings on the Housing (No. 2) Bill, and there is a point I should like to raise in connection with the rating question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood). The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland mentioned with a certain pride the provision in the Housing Act of last year which was introduced by his Government. I remember that there was a great sense of disappointment that sufficient attention was not paid in that Bill to the definition of an agricultural parish, in order to ensure that grants could be made for agricultural parishes as a result of the derating scheme. Genuine apprehension was expressed then that the Government had not dealt with rural houses by defining an agricultural parish as it ought to be defined. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to preen himself on that Measure when that great lacuna, was left glaringly open as regards rural housing. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague the Minister of Health recommend this Bill, although they must remember that they have to their credit a Bill which has in it a definite gap with regard to rural housing. He now recommends the Measure, which this party originally introduced, and about which the Minister of Health has used such grudging words this afternoon.
In supporting the Measure, I want to ask the Government to undertake the question of rural housing with a great deal more scientific attention and with courage and determination, and if there be a presage in those words which the Lord Privy Seal used in his speech last week about the future of rural housing, I shall do all that I can as a representative of rural areas to support the right hon. Gentleman and the Government in any measures that they may undertake. This Bill ought to be only one among many in tackling rural housing. I am not surprised that the Act has not been more successful. It has come at a moment of very severe agricultural depression, and the people who might
have wished to take advantage of it have often been so hard hit that in many cases they have not been able to pay the necessary amount to put some of their cottages right. It has been said by agricultural experts that one of the most notable features of agricultural depression is the decay of the houses and of the barns and equipment. We see in rural England a great example of depression in the decay of the housing. I believe that this Measure will have an enormous future, provided some other Bill is brought in to put agriculture on its feet. In prosperous times the Act would have been very successful; it has managed to weather the storm of agricultural depression and given a good account of itself, and that is another argument for extending its scope for another five years.
The question of water supply, which has already come up, will also give this Measure a great future. It has already been pointed out that it gives an opportunity for cottages to have taps and other conveniences, and if our water supplies develop in the country districts, as they ought to do in a civilised country, I believe that the provisions of the Act will form a necessary extension and corollary to that development. The Government have given a grant for water supplies, for which we ought to be grateful, and I hope that the Act, which was originally conceived by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), will be a corollary to that generous action which the present Government have taken with regard to water.
We in Essex believe very largely in lath and plaster. I do not believe that it is recognised in many of the handbooks of the Ministry as a suitable method of building a house. I live in a lath and plaster house which has lasted 400 years, and we in Essex believe that it is a most suitable method of housing, and that this Act is a suitable Measure to deal with lath and plaster. The various Schedules of suggested improvement works under this Act in most cases deal with plaster which might have been torn off by a gale, or rotted by the passing of years. In many cases, a house can be improved for little money by the putting on of new plaster, and perhaps new laths as well. So from the point of view of local conditions, the Act will be used in Essex to a much greater degree.
It has been used in 60 cases in North Essex, which I represent, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying, as a form of publicity, that I hope that the local authorities and local residents will take much more advantage of this very useful Act to help the housing of rural workers, who in their pressing difficulties deserve the consideration of this House.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I do not wish to take up time by adding to the reasons given to show why we on this side of the House support the Bill, but it may be as well to give my personal experiences as an illustration of some of the difficulties which have been met with, in order to see to what extent they can be removed. It may not be generally known that county councils, in addition to administering the Act themselves, have power, on making representations to the Minister, and with the Minister's consent, to transfer their powers to the rural district councils. That was a matter which was threshed out in Committee, and there were some differences of opinion between my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) and others on this side of the House. In my own county the county council made the mistake, in my opinion, of applying to the Minister to transfer the powers to the rural district councils, on the ground that as they were the bodies who administered housing legislation in general they ought to administer this Act, too. That was an argument discussed when the original Act was in Committee. At that time the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who was Minister of Health, said that landowners had great compunction in asking their friends and neighbours who constitute the ratepayers within the area of a rural district council to give them what appears on the face of it to be a bonus for themselves, and that therefore they would not make application to the district councils. The county council was made the authority, because it was hoped the landowners would have less compunction about applying to a county authority not so closely on the spot and concerned with them.
I had reason to believe that very little use had been made of this Act in Hertfordshire since the power had been trans-
ferred to the district councils, and asked the present Minister of Health to give me the statistics. He told me last November that in this county two houses were provided under the Act in 1928 and seven in 1929, and that in 1930 work on two houses was in progress and was to be begun on two more. That is a most unsatisfactory record. I decided, therefore, to make an application myself. It was an unpleasant thing to do in an area for which I am Member of Parliament, and laid me open to the very objections to which I have referred. I had no cottages which required repair or improvement. I had made the mistake of repairing them at my own expense instead of waiting for this Act to be passed, but there was a building, formerly used as a laundry, attached to my house which I thought could be converted into two cottages and thus give extra cottage accommodation in the district.
I made an application under the Act to the district council, and it was turned down. One member expressed the view that it was not right to lend money to an individual to benefit his own property; and the chairman of the finance committee, in referring to the matter, said that if the application were granted it would be a good investment for the borrower. I had raised this as a test case in order to encourage my fellow-landowners to take advantage of the Act, but found that I had done the very thing which would discourage others from taking similar action. They would see, by the public Press, that I had been made to appear as trying to "feather my own nest" at the public expense, and they would be deterred from applying. I felt it my bounden duty, however, to go on with the matter, and I replied to the district council. Apart from personal representations, I replied in a letter extending to three sheets, in which I gave them a general explanation of the Act. The result was that they reconsidered the application, although it is a very difficult thing to get any authority to do that, and this time they decided to make the grant.
The original objection to my application was that it would be "a good investment for the borrower." This is what the good investment amounted to. The cost of making two good cottages, with no fancy work about them, out of
this derelict laundry, amounted to £835. I have the bills here. It was somewhat difficult to bring my case within the scope of the Act, because its provisions are limited to work on houses the final value of which must not exceed £400 each; but I was able to show to the district council that, although I was spending £835 on the two cottages, in addition to the cost of the original structure, they would not be valued at anything like £800, as they would be cottages for rural workers. I was given £200 towards the cost. Therefore, this undertaking has cost me £635. I have to borrow that sum and pay the ordinary charges on it. What do I get in return for that? I get nothing. They are cottages which I let to my own workers, whom I have already housed at 3s. a week. I simply get the 3s. a week, which I should get in the ordinary way, because I have charged them nothing extra. All that I do get is an extra 3s. for one of the other cottages which was vacated by one of them. That is all the revenue I get—and it is minus the rates which I have to pay on the cottage. I am glad to have done this thing, because I have added to the cottage accommodation in the area, but it has been a mere bit of philanthropy. I do not regret it. I am, unfortunately, in a special position as an old medical officer of health and a Member of Parliament, and I have to do these things; but the experience I have given shows why the Act has not worked. In most cases the conditions are too severe.
The Noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh (Earl of Dalkeith) suggested that better terms ought to be given, for the sake of the local authority. I do not think we can give better terms to landowners, but we might improve the terms offered to the local authorities. At present local authorities pay half and the Exchequer pays half, and I suggest that the Exchequer should pay a larger share. I ask hon. Members opposite who are keen on housing to recognise the very great value of this legislation in the rural areas if it can be made to work better than it has done. The report of the Ministry of Health shows that even under the Act of 1924 only 18,000 houses had been built in the whole of the agricultural areas up to December last. That is not nearly enough; everybody recognises that we must go ahead and try to
build more. Every house built under the Wheatley Act costs a local authority £3 15s. a year for 40 years. Local authorities are anxious to keep their rates down, and the charge which the Wheatley Act imposes is a matter of serious consideration with them before they will build new houses. In that case how are the workers to be housed? I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), who has been arguing against the finance of the Measure, how we can meet the housing problem without making the utmost use of this Act? The hon. and gallant Member ought to know better than to say that this Measure, which gives no adequate return to the owner, is giving landowners a bonus because they are relieved of their rates on other properties. To my mind that is a false argument, and there is no logic in it—unless things in Scotland are working in a very different fashion from how they work in England.
There is no advantage to the landlord under this Act, except that he may have the feeling that he has done a good action. At the utmost he will get 3 per cent. return—sand very rarely that—on money which he has had to borrow at 4½ per cent. This is one of the Measures which show the line along which we can usefully proceed in agricultural areas. The other view is, "Sweep away the old, and get the new and the very best." As a medical officer of health I have heard people who are enthusiastic for good housing suggest that the old houses in villages should be just swept away and new ones built in their place, but I feel that would involve a great deal of unnecessary waste. Cottages built in the middle of the last century are not up to date, but they can be made useful and sound cottages by a certain measure of reconstruction. It must be bold reconstruction and this Act provides for that, and it is by an extension of this Act that we shall be able to cope with the housing problem in rural areas—with the condition that we prevent from getting these houses people who have no right to them, and for whom they are not intended. If we safeguard ourselves against that situation this will be found to be a very useful Measure. I am glad the Government have been converted, and trust they will convert their followers to realise what good work was done for housing by the late Government.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: I will not detain the Minister of Health for more than a moment from rushing out of the House to get on with his housing programme. This Bill will go through without a Division so far as we are concerned, but it ought not to go through without some measure of discussion. Some comment ought to be made on the fact that after nearly two years of office the Minister of Health is relying upon an Act which he described as a "tinker's Act." I do not know whether he called it "a two-penny-halfpenny Measure," but certainly I should call it that. The hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) said he was disappointed with the speech of the Minister. I was not disappointed, because I never expected much. The Minister of Health treated us to the same kind of light and airy discourse which we heard over a week ago. He said that he was not much in favour of this Act, this Tory waif and stray which had been left on his doorstep, but that he had consented to take it in and give it a little shelter, though he had not much use for it. He had not much sympathy for this orphan of the storm. Neither have we on these benches. At the same time, the Minister of Health did not hold out any promise of producing a family of his own. He talked with his usual satisfaction of the 10,000 or 11,000 houses which have been reconditioned in the countryside. What measure of satisfaction he could derive from that I cannot think, when his own Minister for Unemployment was only too grateful the other day to receive the suggestion from these benches that the needs of the countryside were nothing less than 100,000 new houses. We did not expect him to discuss here this afternoon—and it would be out of order if he told us—anything of the progress which has since been made in the course of the week in getting on with that programme. We did, however, expect to hear something of the extended and enlarged programme of reconditioning. He said last week that he hoped there would be a considerable enlargement of this programme, but he gave us no figures and no practical indication of what he intended to do.
Every hon. Member who has spoken this afternoon has agreed that this in
itself is a good Measure, but the Conservative party, who were its authors, have themselves stressed the fact that they are not satisfied with it. We are not satisfied with it, the benches behind the Minister are not satisfied with it, and the Minister himself is not satisfied with it. It is impossible for the party above the Gangway, for this party or for the back benchers opposite to devise anything, but it is not impossible for the Minister. He is the one person in this House in a state of dissatisfaction who has got the means of getting out of that state of dissatisfaction. He has not indicated to us that he intends to take any very drastic steps to do that. Under his Slum Clearance and Housing Acts there has not been a house built in the rural districts of Herefordshire and, as far as I have been able to discover, there has not been a house reconditioned under the Act passed in 1926, or under its operation since the Minister had charge of it. We are asking from these benches, as has been asked from other quarters of the House, that something more vigorous should be done. Everybody in the House is agreed as to the need for a bigger drive in this direction, and I cannot approve of the Bill without expressing to the Minister my own dissatisfaction with the progress so far made.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I would, first of all, assure the Minister of Health that I shall not be quite so ruthless and brutal with him as his quasi ally the Member for Hereford (Mr. F. Owen). I would like to take the opportunity of congratulating the Secretary of State for Scotland on his speech this afternoon. After a lapse of about two years, it is good to hear a speech on the subject of health from that Box which shows some slight knowledge of the facts of the case. It was also interesting to hear that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is partially responsible for this Act, was not compelled to-day, as the Minister of Health is so frequently compelled to do, to hide his total lack of knowledge behind a screen of verbiage and abuse of his opponents. That is the Minister's only speech, which we have heard upwards and downwards, backwards and forwards and in every possible way, adjusted to various Bills. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who will
later address the House, will follow the example of his Scottish chief, and not that of his English one.
I come to the speech of the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones). I listened to that speech with pleasure, and to almost every word of it with agreement. I wondered as I heard it if any parts of that speech had ever been delivered in his own constituency. If not, I hope it will be done at every meeting in the future, because there is a great deal of work which can be done in that division, and a good deal of obstruction has been put in the way of this Act in the whole of Cornwall during the last four or five years. It is a curious fact that, while the county of Devon is doing the best of all counties, Cornwall, which is attached to Devon by the Saltash Bridge and other things, and where you have a similar race of people, has only succeeded to the extent of about 70 houses. I believe the number is better now. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his courageous speech, a speech which really came from his heart, because he is greatly interested in this matter. Of all the amazing speeches to which I have listened from hon. Members below the Gangway, I was most interested in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). He is apt to spring surprises upon us on those rare occasions when he sits in the House, but it was interesting to see that on this occasion he has managed to support a thoroughly Conservative Bill. It is so rare that he supports anything which is not Socialism in one way or another, amid cheers from the hon. Members opposite in the hopes of a convert. He was, however, a convert this afternoon. If hon. Members opposite would care to follow the history of his speeches, they would realise that a most remarkable change has come over the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill.

Mr. F. OWEN: Perhaps he has got a pact.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If I followed up the subject of pacts, I should be called to order very quickly, and I am not going to be tempted in that way. He made a suggestion, which interested me, that, if this Bill were put into operation in England in a proper way, there would be
35,000 houses reconstructed under it. I would like to know from the Minister whether there is any estimate of the number of houses over which this Bill might operate. The right hon. Member for North Cornwall also said that this Bill would do something while the great schemes are being formulated, and that it was of some use while the Government were thinking over bigger schemes. Under this Bill these small schemes are to go on for five years, which is the period in the Act.
It is apparently five years—otherwise the Government would not put that period in their Bill—before the Government are going to do anything to tackle the rural housing problem. I do not know whether the Lord Privy Seal In his speech the other day meant that five years is the time before anything can be done. In the event of such an extraordinary thing happening as the Government being still in power then, you would have had half a dozen Lord Privy Seals by that time. They come and go like the seasons. I would not twit him in any way, only I am so pleased to see him in the House for a few minutes. I would ask the right hon. Member for North Cornwall if he is prepared honestly to go into his own constituency and say precisely the same things that he said to-day about this Bill? He said it would be foolish to scoff about the Bill. Is he prepared to say that he has scoffed about this Bill for four or five years and that he has been foolish all the time, and has now discovered his error? Is he prepared to tell the people there that they were wrong to throw away the opportunities which they have had during the last four or five years, during which everything has been done to discourage them from taking advantage of those opportunities?
That is the kind of thing which has been done in different districts in this country and, if there is no other result to the Debate to-day, it will have the result that all three parties will be voting in favour of this Measure, a Measure which is in some ways extravagant, a Measure which in some ways some people would like to see go further, but which is doing a great deal of good, and which in Scotland is doing good out of all proportion to what it has been allowed to do in this country. Apparently, the
Scotsman thinks more of his packet and less of politics than they do in some parts of England. This Bill is one of those Measures which effect a good deal of good. I would like whoever replies for the Government to answer three definite questions: Why is it that these houses on the average cost rather more in Scotland than in England? I do not ask that in a critical sense but, if the information cannot be obtained now, the House is entitled to know it at some later stage.
Another point is as to the limit of £400. If the total value after renovations of the house is beyond £400, one cannot get grants. The case has been brought before us of the difficulty which arises in the case of a small farmer, who may be ruled out by the £400 limit. At some stage that point may he answered by an Amendment which would cover the small farmer's position. That is a point which ought not to be overlooked. They form a valuable part of the agricultural community, and it is a question which under many measures we are trying to encourage. The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the time when he had some doubts about this Measure, but I should like to ask if he could now assure us that he has had all those grave doubts removed. If he would do that, it would enable many of us to help him forward with this Bill to a very large extent. I am certain that, if he could give the House that assurance, all parties would welcome this Bill, which is a sound Measure, and which at the present moment is doing a great deal of good in every part of the country.

Major ELLIOT: To-night both sides are pleased. The Minister desires to get the Second Reading of this Bill and he will get it. Those who introduced the Act originally are only too pleased that it has found favour in the eyes of some of its bitterest critics and are only too glad to see that the Act is going to be continued for another five years. Yet in all parts of the House we feel that full use has not been made of this Measure. There are great differences in the use which has been made of its provisions in adjacent counties in England, and the comparison is more striking between the counties of England and Scotland. For instance, the figures for the county of
Cornwall are 74 reconditioned and 50 in process of reconditioning, and in Devon 249 reconditioned and 122 in process. All through England we find that certain counties have done a great deal, and others have done very little. In the Isle of Ely only 10 houses have been reconditioned under the Act; in the county of Durham 21 have been reconditioned, and only 10 are in process of reconditioning. In the county of Lancaster, 10 houses have been reconditioned, and only six are in process of reconditioning. In the county of Lincoln, no houses have been reconditioned, and no reconditioning work is in progress. I think all these figures clearly show that the Act did not have a fortunate send-off. What is more, it seems, to judge by the Minister's speech, to have been administered during the last two years in a very grudging spirit.
It is perfectly easy to find quotations of the strongest nature from the party opposite while this Measure was passing through the House. The Minister of Health has already been criticised this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman complains that those who criticise him use only jaunty air and a few quotations. Nothing more is necessary when criticising his present attitude. There is plenty of ammunition to go on with. I could read the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Beading, and on the Third Reading. In the Third Reading Debate the Minister of Health said:
To-day we have heard with sadness that the Government have now inscribed on its banner, Working-class houses without baths and bathrooms.' This is to be regarded as a Conservative standard of what are fit houses for working-class people to live in.
Continuing his speech the right hon. Gentleman said:
This is an attempt on the part of the Government to give definite financial support to a class which is one of the strongest in the political forces which they represent. It is an unfair and an unjust Act, a measure of political bribery to a class of their political opponents and it will do next to nothing really to solve the rural housing problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1926; cols. 1800–1802, Vol. 200.]
This Measure of political bribery is now brought forward by the Government as their main contribution for a period of five years towards the problem of rural housing. Furthermore, in these previous
Debates, the late Opposition brought up their biggest gun. They put their siege howitzer into position. The Leader of the Opposition was brought, down to take his part. First he attacked the Government for taking two years to do anything in regard to this problem. It has taken the Labour Government themselves two years. The Prime Minister went on to say:
The agricultural labourer, however, is not so simple as some of them imagine, and he knows perfectly well the difference between legislation which is aimed primarily at helping him and legislation which is aimed primarily at applying public funds for private ends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1926; col. 2898, Vol. 198.]
Could we expect the Act to be taken up enthusiastically when it was described by the Leader of the Opposition as primarily an effort to apply public funds to private ends, and when the leading housing speaker for the Opposition at that time said that it was simply a barefaced attempt at bribery and corruption for a particular class. Under those conditions, the Act has taken several years to work itself into favour. I am glad to find that in Scotland local authorities were not led away by the rhodomontade of the Leader of the Opposition or the vituperation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood). What was the result? The figures show that in Scotland we have succeeded in doing more than the whole of England put together, and that is a record of which we are not ashamed. The memorandum on the Financial Resolution upon housing (rural workers) shows that the number of grants made up to 30th September, 1930, in England and Wales were 3,694 and in Scotland 6,193. The amount of these grants in Scotland came to £530,000 for these 6,000 grants. That was six months ago. The present figures must reach over £600,000. The amount paid by the landlord as his corresponding quota must have been at least £400,000 sterling or even more, because the landlord pays more since £150 was fixed as the maximum sum for the grants which are allowed, and the sums expended are frequently in excess of that. What does that mean? That over over £1,000,000 is being spent in Scotland in reconditioning rural houses. The equivalent amount for England and Wales would reach a sum of between
£8,000,000 to £10,000,000, instead of the sum of under £1,000,000 which is at present being expended.
If the Act had been taken up with the same vigour by the local authorities England as in Scotland, it would have made a difference between what is now being expended and what could have expended of some £7,000,000 or £8,000,000. And on what? On what the Secretary of State for Scotland has referred to this evening, namely, the provision of water, light, extra bedroom accommodation, all of them most valuable things. As a matter of sheer public health, apart from its effect on rural unemployment, the expenditure of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000 sterling, a large proportion of which would have come from the landlords, would have been one of the most beneficial measures that could possible have been conceived, and it is clearly shown by the figures from the north of the Tweed that that result could have been achieved.
Even in Scotland a great deal more could have been done for the reconditioning of rural houses. In answer to a question, the Secretary of State circulated a table showing the number of houses being improved under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926. It showed that in West Lothian the number of dwellings to be improved was 67, in Perth 278, in Inverness 165, in East Lothian 313, in Berwick 299, and in Aberdeen 323. Other counties have done very little. Many populous and wealthy counties such as Lanark could have done a good deal more than improve 193 houses, or the county of Renfrew which dealt only with two houses. The differences show that it is usually only a case of whether the local authorities and the landlords have taken this matter up. What has been done in one case could have been done in other cases, if a similar amount of energy and drive had been applied.
We make no apology for having taken up a certain amount of time to discuss this Measure. The subject requires more publicity. We have been told that in the county of Devon considerable effort under the Act led to only a farthing rate for a period of 20 years, and that seems to be a sort of figure worth while repeating in this sounding board of the nation. I think that other counties might very well consider whether a great deal of unem-
ployment could not be mitigated by a more vigorous application of this small and practical Measure. I am sorry to find that even yet it does not command universal approval. Mr. Joseph Duncan, whom I have quoted when he agreed with me, and whom I feel it is necessary to quote when he disagrees with me, writes, in "Forward" of the 11th April, 1931:
Five years ago the Tory Government introduced an Act under which rural landowners are given doles. It is known as the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926… I wrote at the time, It is the most barefaced piece of corruption which has been presented to Parliament in our generation.'
It led, at any rate, to some 6,000 houses in Scotland being reconditioned, with water, light and extra sleeping accommodation, and, if it is the most barefaced piece of corruption presented to Parliament in our generation, at any rate it has had more beneficial effects than some pieces of corruption which have come under the review of this House. He goes on:
The Act expires in October this year. Even the Tories could not face up to such robbing of the ratepayers and taxpayers as a permanent institution. It has been left to the Labour Government to renew the Act. … Even although the Government has decided to renew the Act, I still think it is the most barefaced piece of corruption which has been presented to Parliament in our time.
I fail to follow that argument; it does not seem to me to have any bearing on the issues that are before us. Mr. Joseph Duncan has had a great deal of experience in practical affairs, and is deeply devoted to the cause of better housing for agricultural workers, and I am surprised to find him bringing forward arguments like this at this time of day. It is exactly those arguments, that mentality, and these attacks, which have led to the great hold-up in many counties, and it is just those attacks, that attitude of mind, that whole complex, which we want to see cleared off and dissipated; and it is for this reason that we have been most desirous of having the Debate this afternoon and of obtaining the admission which have been made—generously in the case of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and grudgingly in the case of the Minister of Health, but at any rate backed by something more definite than the speeches of either of them, namely, a Financial Resolution of the House of Commons, recommended to
it by the Treasury, and with the King's assent signified in the usual fashion, declaring that the Government will find money for the Measure. So wt must take it that they believe the Measure to be a good one, and one which ought to be supported. The proposals which the Government bring before us to-day are sound proposals; and they are none the less sound because we said they were good proposals five years ago, and it has taken the Government five years to find out that we were right and they were wrong.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): It seems to be unnecessary for me to detain the House for very long when practically everyone seems to be agreed that this would be a useful Measure to continue for five years, but I propose as briefly as possible to deal with one or two points that have been raised during the discussion. I would like to point out to the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) that any success that has attended this particular Act in Scotland has been mainly due to the energy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] Saturday after Saturday for the last two years my right hon. Friend has been addressing conferences in different parts of Scotland, and trying to create the necessary public opinion to make a success, not merely of the Wheatley Act or of the new Slum Clearance Act, but also of the Act which lye are discussing at the present moment. We were in Inverness Saturday, and within three weeks we shall be discussing the same matters in Midlothian; and at both of these conferences—the one which has been held and the one which is to be held—we do not merely stress the advantages of one particular Act, because, where we can get improvements in any of the housing conditions that affect our people, no matter under what Act, we are going to get the improvements so far as our administration is concerned. I may point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, during practically three years of the operation of the Act, when he and his friends were responsible for its administration, the total number of houses approved for grant was 3,518, but, in the year 1930, the full year of our administration, we find that the houses approved for grant totalled no fewer than 3,342.

Major ELLIOT: Will the hon. Gentleman apply the same test to the current administrative working of the new 1930 Act?

Mr. WESTWOOD: That question will be more appropriately put after our Slum Clearance Act has been in operation for two or three years, and, when that question is put to us, I feel sure that, on the tenders approved then and now, we shall be prepared to accept the challenge and prove that our Act is operating better already than this particular Act operated until we were responsible for its administration. [Interruption.] We shall not admit any crabbing of this particular Act—

Earl WINTERTON: I referred to the Minister of Health.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am speaking of Scotland at the moment. Scotland has already demonstrated that it has taken better advantage of this Act than England, and we shall continue to get every house that requires improving improved, if we can get the assistance of the local administrative bodies to carry through that work.
A question was put as to why this Act is to be extended for five years. I think the answer is obvious. The difficulty that has been found with housing, particularly on the financial side, has been in connection with the two-yearly review of the financial arrangements. Every two years there has to be a review of the financial arrangements associated with these Acts. As a result of these difficulties, we, in our Slum Clearance Act, made the period of review three years instead of two. No sooner do you get an impetus for building on the part of local authorities than you have a slackening up, because they are not sure of the financial arrangements for future years, and that has been one of our difficulties in connection with the housing push at the present time. The object of extending this Act for five years is to keep going the good work which we have already seen started in Scotland. We do not want it stopped. We want authorities who have been taking advantage of it to take still further advantage of it, and we want those authorities that have been negligent in dealing with disreputable houses in their districts, which by some
expenditure of public and private money could be made habitable, to get that work done.
We have been asked what means we are prepared to adopt to work the Act. We will consider every suggestion from every quarter of the House which will be useful in operating this Act still more successfully. It was suggested, I think by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd), that we might ask the representatives of those authorities who have been successful in administering this Act to be missionaries. I feel sure that that would be most acceptable to my colleagues north of the Tweed, because we have been the most successful in administering it, and I feel sure that representatives from East Lothian would be only too pleased to pay visits to the reactionary areas in England to convince them how successful we have made the administration of this Act in Scotland. There is nothing that a Scotsman likes better than a visit to London or to England, to teach Englishmen how to erect houses.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It is not to London that the missionaries would have to go, but to the rural areas.

Mr. WESTWOOD: All that I said was that nothing pleases a Scotsman better than a visit to London, and, indeed, it would perhaps be necessary to come to London for the purpose of getting down to Cornwall. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Major Wood) put several questions. Incidentally he complained about the finance of the scheme, but, as there seems to be a conflict of opinion between him and the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), it would perhaps be better to allow the two to fight out that difficulty outside rather than here. I would point out, referring to another point that he put, as to whether it would be possible to extend this Act to small farmers, that the conditions of the grant and the provisions of the Act itself are such that it would be impossible unless these people accepted the conditions, and those conditions are that such a house during the specified period must not be occupied except by a person whose income is such that he would not ordinarily pay a rent in excess of what is paid by an agricultural worker. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not amend it?"]
That would extend the financial commitments that have to be met, and would be dealing with a problem with which the Act was never intended to deal; it was intended that it should be confined to the provision of houses for those who had either agricultural wages or wages similar to those of agricultural workers, and who were unable to pay the rents which are being demanded for the new houses which are being put up at the present time. I think I have met all the points which have been raised; if not, it is not because I do not desire to do so—

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: May I ask why houses are more expensive in Scotland than in England?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The answer is that transport costs in Scotland are far greater. In my own constituency, a shepherd's house reconditioned under this Act would be at least 10 or 12 miles, if not more, from the nearest station, with the result that transport charges in that case would be far greater than in many cases in England. Transport charges add very materially to the cost. There is also the fact that repairs have to be more effective than in England, where the climate is not so severe as it happens to be in Scotland. There may be other reasons, but these are two good reasons why the cost is greater in Scotland than in England. I trust that I have met at least the main points which have been raised in connection with the Bill, and, as there has been no objection from any part of the House, I feel sure that we are going to get the Second Reading unanimously. I can guarantee that, so far as administration is concerned, my right hon. Friend and myself will put all the energy and all the "vim" that is possible behind it, in order to get the maximum number of houses improved under this Measure if it is continued as an Act of Parliament for another five years.

Major COLVILLE: Did I understand the Under-Secretary to say that, at the conferences which have been held in Scotland, this Act, as well as the Housing Act, 1930, has been explained, and that the local authorities have been urged to take advantage of it? I person-
ally was consulted in regard to the Midlothian Conference that will take place shortly, and this Act was not on the agenda until at my own request it was included. I want to be quite certain that the Government really have urged this Act on the local authorities up and down the country.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have already given that assurance. It has been done in all the other cases, including the Conference at Inverness last Saturday. It will certainly be done at the Midlothian Conference, not merely on the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member, because it was in our minds at the time, but, in drafting the communication to the Midlothian County Council, there was a certain agreement on the terms inside the letter. That is really the position so far as the Midlothian Conference is concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: The hon. Gentleman has said that he can assure us that the Act will be properly administered in Scotland, but we have had no such assurance with regard to England. Neither representative of the Ministry of Health has condescended to say a word about this Bill, except that the Minister of Health did a certain amount of crabbing; he has constantly run it down and crabbed it in every possible way that he could. What I want, as coming from a county which has been constantly mentioned as being the best county of any in England, is an assurance that the Bill will be properly administered in England, and that we shall be encouraged to carry on with it in our own country.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Act has not had great success in England, but the amount of money spent under it is growing. The number of houses in 1928 was 1,165 and in 1930, 1,539. The amount of grant promised has grown from £85,000 odd to £120,000. The total is not great but it shows a certain growth.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Orders of the Day — POST OFFICE AND TELEGRAPH [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient—

(i) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of such sums, not exceeding in the whole thirty-two million pounds, as may be required for the further development of the postal, telegraphic, and telephonic systems;
(ii) to authorise the Treasury to borrow, by means of terminable annuities or by the issue of Exchequer bonds, for the purpose of providing money for sums so authorised to be issued or of repaying to the Consolidated Fund all or any part of the sums so issued;
(iii) to provide for the payment of such terminable annuities, or of the principal of and interest on any such Exchequer bonds, out of money provided by Parliament for the service of the Post Office or, if those moneys are insufficient, out of the Consolidated Fund."—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Attlee.]

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee): It is some time since a Debate on a Resolution of this nature has taken place. I think the last occasion was in 1925. I should like to give one or two reasons why we are asking for this sum, and to explain the Resolution. It has become customary to provide for the capital needs of the telephone and telegraph services, and certain minor postal services, by a Bill founded on a Financial Resolution every three years. That method of budgeting, so to speak, for three years was introduced for the first time by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Croydon (Sir W. Mitahell-Thomson), and he gave very cogent reasons why that was a sound businesslike procedure. It is obvious that, if you are carrying on a big business, you want to estimate as far ahead as you can, and in this case it is for the convenience of the Post Office, of the Treasury, and of the manufacturers. The amount for which we are asking as capital for this undertaking for the next three years is £32,000,000, of which all but £2,800,000 is for the telephone service. We estimate that we shall have in hand between £1,500,000 and £2,000,000, so that our provision of capital is really at the rate of little more than £11,000,000 a year. We have allowed a little extra
in order that the money shall not run out. This is an increase in the actual figures of rather more than £1,000,000 a year over the expenditure of the past three years, and the expenditure for these past three years was again in excess of the previous three years. That is as it should be with an expanding service.
But it is very dangerous to take actual figures in these days of changing price levels, and the amount that we are actually asking for is really rather greater than would appear from the figures. I may roughly estimate, perhaps, that £32,000,000 is equal to £36,000,000 on the price level of three years ago, and I must inform the Committee why we desire an enhanced rate of capital expenditure. The items are telegraphic plant, Post Office sites and buildings, and telephone capital expenditure. The telegraphic plant amounts to some £400,000 for the three years, minor works and such matters as lifts, repairs, electric light, heating and so forth amount to £379,000, and sites and buildings, mainly Class 2 Post Offices—the bulk of our Post Office buildings are provided by the Office of Works—absorb the rest. As to telephones, new exchanges account for about £9,000,000, underground and overhead lines £7,000,000, local and subscribers' lines about £12,000,000, and sites and buildings for telephones about £3,000,000. There are other smaller items that I could give, but those are the main items, in order that the Committee may see what the expenditure consists of.
The amount of capital required for a business like the telephones obviously depends on our rate of increase of custom. When our predecessors in office made an estimate of the amount of capital expenditure which they would require for these three years, they had at the same time to think of what the increase of business would be, because the policy in running the telephones has always been to keep a very small margin of profit and to return in lower prices and better service anything above that. In the course of the last few years there have been a number of instances, which I gave in the last Debate on telephones, of those improvements of service and lowering of charges. We, therefore, work with a comparatively small margin. On the other hand, it has always been the policy of the administration to work well ahead of the actual demand.
The telephone service is an expanding service. I should like to give one or two figures with regard to that expansion. In the five years from 1925 to 1930 subscribers have increased from 1,390,000 to 1,882,000. That is something like a 50 per cent. increase. Our net annual intake of new subscribers is round about 130,000, when you have set off those who have discontinued subscribing. It is clear, therefore, that somewhere about that order of increase is necessary to meet the capital charges under the proposals put before us in the time of our predecessors. There has been a big increase in the number of telephone exchanges. The number is now 4,893. Members for rural constituencies are specially interested in developments in their localities. The increase in rural telephone exchanges has been very great. The total number is now 3,366. Since the beginning of 1929, 445 rural exchanges have been opened. I should like the Committee to note that figure, because it is very considerable. We cannot be said not to be offering facilities in rural areas. In the same period 9,000 call offices have been opened. These increases have been effected during a time of industrial depression.
The Committee will naturally wish to be assured that the anticipated new business will justify this capital expenditure. There are certain matters over which we have no control. We have to judge what the course of trade will be, and we hope for a change in trade conditions. But it is not enough in a business to wait for trade to come. It is necessary to go out and get it. I should like to refer to a passage in a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Croydon on this point. He was replying to a Member who asked why he did not go in for advertising. He said:
In the last few days I have seen exhortations to start an advertising campaign to try to popularise the telephones. There is no good advertising, unless you are in the position when you get replies to your advertisements, to deliver the goods, and, frankly speaking, owing to the arrears which accumulated during war time, we are not in the position to deliver the goods the demand for which ought to come from a largely extended advertising campaign."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July, 1925; col. 391, Vol. 187.]
8.0 p.m.
That was the position in 1925, but the position has changed since then. We are in a position to-day to gain a very large intake of subscribers. We have something like 25 per cent. of spare plant. Of course, that spare plant is all over the country, and you necessarily, in a business like the telephones, have to keep spare plant ready in various parts of the country, because you never know whence the demand for an increase may come. That amounts to 387,000 lines. The Committee will see, therefore, that we actually have the plant there if we can get the increased number of subscribers. That explains why you cannot expect to put a large number of people to work on telephone construction, but that is by the way. I say it is necessary to-day, taking the line taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, to look at this matter rather differently from 1925, when the Post Office was admittedly hung up by lack of plant.
To-day we have the plant and we are working to put in more plant, but we have, if the Financial Resolution is to be justified, to see that we not only maintain our rate of increase, but accelerate it. For that there are two things that we need; one is new subscribers, and the other is an increased calling rate. I do not want to go into detailed matters of administration—indeed, I might be out of order if I did—but in order to justify my capital expenditure as proposed, I must show that we are out to get the custom to justify the plant that we shall put in under this Resolution. We are proposing, by advertising, by posters, by canvassing, and so forth, to go out for the business, as I said just now. We are also proposing certain changes with regard to the offering of party lines, which is also recommended to us at all events as an experiment; and, therefore, I say that we are in a position to do more business and out to get more business.
I would like to say a word particularly with regard to rural telephones, because I feel that the Committee should take as much feeling of responsibility as it can before this Debate closes, and every hon. Member can very much help to make this financially a success. I have here a list of the exchanges opened in rural areas during the last two years, and if one casts one's eye down that list to see the
number of lines working per exchange, he will find that it is very much under capacity and very much under the economic number desired. We make a loss on our rural business, and we have frankly to recognise that. We believe in doing it, but we should try to minimise that loss as much as possible. If I run my eye down this list, I see exchanges with nine subscribers, with eight, with nine, with seven, and so forth, and there are very few that show anywhere near the 50 subscribers which is about the number that makes for financial equilibrium. The Committee will see, therefore, that an increase of subscribers in the areas where the exchanges are not fully provided with customers would make a big financial difference. We have the plant there, but we want it fully used.
The same thing applies to other exchanges, but there is something more than that, and that is the increase in the calling rate. That again is largely a matter of acquiring a telephone sense, of popularising the telephones, and I think we have to do a great deal more in this country in that way. It is a matter in which I should like to ask the co-operation of everybody in this House, because really a telephone, if nobody but one's neighbour has one, is of very little use, and the telephone is one of those benefits which increases the more we can get others to share in it; and particularly in the rural areas increased user will come by an increased range of subscribers, but will also come by a realisation of the advantages; and we need an increased calling rate. Our calling rate has been going down, but that is largely because we have been taking in the rural exchanges, and we are looking to the rural localities eventually to justify the very big capital expenditure that has been put into the rural districts, and quite rightly put in.
I think that is all that I would say at this juncture in recommending this Financial Resolution to the Committee. I believe that the time has come now in telephones when a greater publicity will pay, when a greater good will will pay, and all of us should take care that we do not unwittingly damage a national asset by, shall I say, over criticism. Criticism is thoroughly good. It is really rather a tribute, as a matter of fact, to the telephones that complaints about the telephone service are still apparently news in
the newspapers. If anybody complained about the suburban train service, it would not be news, because it is so frequent. Unfortunately, we get a good deal of criticism in the papers, and I do not complain of it, but I think we could do better, and I hope hon. Members in all parts of the Committee will be encouraged to realise that if you want a cheap telephone service, a fully developed service, you cannot get it by discouraging people from using the telephone, but only by an increased user. I hope the Committee will, therefore, support this Financial Resolution. If anything, it may be said that my estimate of capital expenditure in the next three years is optimistic. I do not think it is optimistic if, as I say, we go out and get the business, because I believe that the business is there to be got.

Viscount WOLMER: I should like to thank the Postmaster-General very much for his careful and lucid explanation of the Resolution before the Committee. He has told the Committee that it represents the three years programme of the Labour party for telephone development, and I am bound to say that if you compare that programme with the hopes that were held out to the nation before they took office, and even with the hopes that were held out to the nation soon after they had taken office, that programme is exceedingly disappointing. When a Financial Resolution of this nature was last before the House of Commons, it was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), in 1928, and on that occasion the Labour party did not hesitate to condemn my right hon. Friend's programme as very inadequate. The present Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who in those days used to speak for the Socialist party on Post Office affairs, said this about the last Telephone Money Bill which my right hon. Friend introduced:
The Postmaster-General could have developed the telephone branch of the service very much more rapidly than he has done. Developments at this time would help the unemployment problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1928; col. 1239, Vol. 220.]
That was the gospel which they used to preach to us in those days, and in the manifesto that the Labour party issued entitled "How to Conquer Unemployment," which was, I think, a reply to a book with a somewhat similar title that
came from the Liberal party, this statement was made:
The telephone system in this country is capable of great and rapid development, and the Labour party is prepared to spend capital freely on developing it.
That, of course, is the policy of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Liberal party, and I understand that, as a result of the assurances that the Government have given to the Liberal party as to the amount of money that they are prepared to spend on telephone development and other methods for diminishing unemployment, the Liberal party are prepared to keep the Government in office. This is what, in the Liberal book "How to Tackle Unemployment," is the policy advocated:
By adopting a vigorous policy we showed that it should be possible to increase the average number of telephones by 300,000 per annum for the next five years, instead of by 125,000 per annum, the figure at which it now stands.
I am bound to say that this is a very meagre realisation of those promises that were held out, and even of the promises that the present Secretary of State for the Dominions held out when he first assumed the office of Lord Privy Seal. When he became Lord Privy Seal, he announced in this House that he was going to use the Post Office very much towards helping to solve the unemployment problem. Speaking here on the 4th November, 1929, he said:
We have no right to say to a private employer, you speed up,' without making a similar appeal to Government Departments. Consequently we asked the Post Office what they would do … In response to the appeal we made the Post Office have decided to accelerate their programme and they propose spending £750,000 this year and £750,000 next year on extensions of the telephone programme. That at least is an indication that the Post Office is not reluctant and is not behind the others."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 666, Vol. 231.]
That in itself was an exceedingly disappointing pronouncement, but, as I shall show in a few moments, even that has not been realised by the Government. It was a perfectly inadequate contribution for a party that was talking about rapid development of the telephones in order to deal with the unemployment problem, and in fact the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs did not disguise his
disappointment. This was his comment on it:
His telephone proposals are ridiculous. I looked at the figures spent upon telephones in 1928, when my right hon. Friend here (the Member for Croydon) was in office—£10,207,000; the year before, £11,615,000; the year before that, £11,902,000; and the right hon. Gentleman comes here and says, I have at last found a Postmaster-General, liberal, daring, venturesome, not like the poor miserable things we have had, and he is going to spend—three-quarters of a million!' The right hon. Gentleman—I do not know whether he is responsible or some of his friends—announced in the newspapers that we were to expect a surprise. I have not got it. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have got it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 694, Vol. 231.]
I think that that is a very just criticism of the Labour proposals for helping to solve unemployment by telephone extension. But the right hon. Gentleman has not lived up to that. If members of the Committee will look back at the Debate which we had three years ago when my right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) was introducing a similar Resolution, they will find that he said:
I am asking the Committee now to give me a further credit of £25,000,000. This, with the £4,000,000 in hand, will, I estimate, last me until the end of March, 1931."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1928; col. 1245, Vol. 220.]
But at the end of March, 1931, the hon. Gentleman had about £2,000,000 in band. In fact, the Government have not been spending money at the rate which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon mapped out for a Conservative Government.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I remind the Noble Lord that there has been a very considerable change in prices since then. I think I warned him of that beforehand.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman mentioned that fact, and no doubt that may account for some of the money, but the fact remains that the Government are not expanding telephones at any faster rate than the Conservative Government which they so freely criticised. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the same Debate, he will see that my right hon. Friend was able to tell the House that there had been an expansion during the past year of 122,000 telephones, whereas I noticed that the hon. Gentleman in his speech just now was only anticipating an expansion of
120,000 telephones per annum. That is to say, he is content to budget for a lower figure than my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon was able to record in his last year of office.

Mr. ATTLEE: I said that the figure was regarded as necessary in order to meet the capital expenditure. I said that with an increased capital expenditure we should need an increased amount.

Viscount WOLMER: If I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman apologise, but I understood him to say there was an increase of 120,000 a year.

Mr. ATTLEE: No.

Viscunt WOLMER: Whatever may be the exact difference in the rate of increase between this Government and the last, the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is no very material difference.

Mr. ATTLEE: A very material difference.

Viscount WOLMER: I shall be very glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman what it is. Telephones were being expanded at the rate of about 12,000 a year for the last three years we were in office, and the rate of expansion at the present moment is not appreciably more than that, if it is anything like it. As the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) has found out on more than one occasion before, I am afraid that he will have to confess that there is very little difference between the wicked reactionary Tory Government in this matter and the enlightened Socialist Government which it is his honour and pleasure to support. The hon. Gentleman has permanently reconciled himself to and is budgeting for, that rate of increase. [Interruption.] He must accept responsibility for the estimate, which will leave sufficient money to allow the telephone increase for three years. He said so just now in his speech.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am sorry to interrupt the Noble Lord. I pointed out, as a matter of fact, that there was a very large amount of surplus plant, and that therefore a much bigger rate of increase was possible if we could get the business.

Viscount WOLMER: The administration has carried surplus plant, and, of course, if the hon. Gentleman has added to the amount of surplus plant he is carrying, it will raise his costs. He cannot carry idle plant without adding to his casts. The whole of that plant must represent capital expenditure which he has to meet, and, therefore, the more plant he is carrying, the more he is adding to overhead charges, and that is bound to reflect itself upon telephone development.

Mr. ATTLEE: The Noble Lord is exactly inverting what I said. I said that if you add to that plant, the economic thing was to try to get a bigger rate of advance, not necessarily in accord with the amount of new capital expenditure.

Viscount WOLMER: I should be interested to know, if the hon. Gentleman makes a further reply, what hope he can hold out to the Committee that there is going to be any absorption of that plant during the next three years. Even if he absorbed the whole of that plant, we should still remain a fifth-rate Power in telephone development. We should still remain eighth or ninth on the list of telephone countries. The point to which I should like particularly to draw the attention of the Committee is the very serious effect that the under-development of our telephone system has upon the unemployment question. I think that the Postmaster-General will bear me out, that if you could get an acceleration in telephone development you could increase employment in about 60 different trades. Every one of them is a trade in which there is heavy unemployment, and you would be finding just the sort of employment that is required. You would be giving employment to skilled artisans in the trades in which they have acquired their skill, instead of putting them to work such as making new roads, in which you would be wasting the whole of their manual skill.
I would ask the Committee to compare our position with that of the United States of America. In America they are spending about £140,000 every year on telephone development, or more than the total value of our telephone plant. We all know that America has a population three times as big as this country—

Mr. ATTLEE: And an area.

Viscount WOLMER: If you divide those figures by three, it shows the sort of figure we should be spending on our telephone development if we had the same rate of telephone development as they have in the United States. There is no greater fallacy than to suppose that there is some special disability inherent in this country which prevents our developing telephonically in the way that other countries have done. The sole cause is the inefficiency of the Post Office as the machine designed for this particular purpose. I have previously directed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the example of the islands of Jersey and Guernsey. It is a very instructive example, although very small. There you have an island which had an independent telephone system with two and a-half times as many telephones per head of the population as the island whose telephone were run by the Post Office. At that time Jersey whose telephones were run by the Post Office had a higher telephone development than England.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not want unduly to restrict the Noble Lord, hut detailed criticism of administration does not arise on this particular Resolution. That will naturally come when the Estimates of the Department are submitted.

Viscount WOLMER: I am not criticising the administration of the right hon. Gentleman, because the facts to which I have referred did not occur within his tenure of office. I am merely dealing with the cause of his asking the Committee for such a small sum for telephone developments and that, I submit, is in Order in this Debate. I will not go wider than you have indicated as right. If we could get an increase to the amount of two and a-half times in the telephones of this country, which is the rate of increase to which the example which I have quoted points, we should have a programme of telephone development of something in the neighbourhood of £300,000,000. That is the sort of figure that represents our telephone deficiency compared with the standard of efficient telephone countries. That is a terrific figure. How the Lord Privy Seal would envy a five-year programme in which he could spend that money on telephone development. I know that the Treasury never finance loans of that scale. I do
not think that the right, hon. Gentleman will take us sufficiently into his confidence to say whether he has had any difficulty with the Treasury over this Bill, but I am certain that, if he asked the Treasury to sanction schemes to provide £60,000,000 a year for five years, he would find that they would tell him that it conflicted entirely with their schemes for redeeming the National Debt. Any telephone extension on that sort of scale is quite impossible so long as the Post Office is under Treasury control.
What is the real cause that prevents the right hon. Gentleman from developing the telephone system, as I am sure he would wish to do 7 It is, as he has indicated, the lack of demand. He is carrying 25 per cent. spare parts, and that is a very unfortunate state of affairs. The causes of the lack of demand are high charges and inferior service. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to deprecate criticism, but you are merely pursuing the ostrich policy if you pretend that all is right in the telephone service of this country, and that the public are satisfied with it. If the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten everything that he learned before he went to St. Martin's-le-Grand, he must know that no such satisfaction exists. Our high telephone charges account amply for the lack of telephone demands. Let me take the cost of the telephone to the average subscriber in the country district. I believe the average number of calls is something in the neighbourhood of 1,500 a year to the subscriber. If you take a subscriber in the country, living one mile from the exchange, that is, within the radius, in England, if he makes the average number of calls the telephone costs him £13 a year; in Denmark, £6 5s.; in Sweden, six guineas—

Mr. ATTLEE: Is it not a fact that in Sweden the subscriber pays for the installation?

Viscount WOLMER: In these figures I have calculated that the subscriber would be on the telephone for five years and would pay for the provision of the installation, 20 per cent. being charged each year. That is the fairest way in which you can compare the figures. It is always difficult to compare figures when the charges in different countries are on a different basis, but in all these cases
I have provided for the installation charge. In Canada the charge is £7 5s., and in Australia £9 5s. Take a subscriber five miles from the exchange, that is, outside the radius: in England the charge is £37 5s.; in Denmark, £12; in Sweden, £17; in New York, £28 18s.; in Canada, £7 5s.; and in Australia, £9 5s. Those figures show a tremendous discrepancy, which accounts amply for the fact that the telephone is not used in this country as much as it is in other countries. The telephone costs the subscriber a great deal more than it costs in the other countries. Why is that? Because our telephones have cost more to instal. The British telephone has cost £77 to instal, the American telephone £47, and the Swedish telephone £37. When we compare the cost of the British system with that of the American system, we find that a sum of £44,000,000 has been wasted on our system which would not have been expended if we could have erected it as cheaply as the Americans have erected theirs. These are gigantic figures, and they amply account for our high charges and the lack of telephone demand.
I have also reminded the Postmaster-General why it is that the Americans have been able to erect their telephones so much more cheaply than we are able to do. The right hon. Member for South Croydon sent a commission of inquiry to America on the subject. I do not know whether the Postmaster-General has been able to read the report of that commission, but, if not, I hope he will do so, and he will find that laying a mile of cable in America took 384 man-hours, and in this country 808 man-hours. Jointing a cable took 40 man-hours in America and 92 man-hours in England. Figures of this sort account for our high telephone costs and our high telephone charges.

Mr. KELLY: Can the Noble Lord tell us where he obtained those figures?

Viscount WOLMER: They are taken from the report of the deputation sent to America by the Postmaster-General of the day.

Mr. KELLY: What is the date?

Viscount WOLMER: Speaking from memory, I think it was in 1928. I shall be interested to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has been able to improve
on those figures. The right hon. Member for South Croydon at once set oh foot machinery to bring about an improvement in our figures. I have quoted every one of these figures before. The late Postmaster-General, whom I am glad to see in the House, did not challenge a single one, and the present Postmaster-General has paid me the compliment—

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): I challenged them, and I answered them. The House divided upon them and gave their answer to the Noble Lord.

Viscount WOLMER: The right hon. Member has not been able to correct a single figure that I gave except to say that certain rooms in the Sheffield telephone exchange were let. That is the only correction the right hon. Gentleman has made in my figures.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: We had a Debate in this House in which I answered the Noble Lord's figures, and it was followed by a Division in which he obtained 44 votes.

Viscount WOLMER: Certainly we had a Debate on a private Member's night, but the right hon. Gentleman did not challenge the accuracy of a single figure of mine, and his successor in office said:
It is easy to say, as the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot says, 'you cannot answer my figures.' The figures may be right, but, unfortunately, the deduction is entirely wrong."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1931; col. 2224, Vol. 249.]

Mr. ATTLEE: The Noble Lord was comparing figures for various years without any reference whatever to the purchasing price of money at the time. That is what I was referring to.

Viscount WOLMER: The figures as to the comparison of costs in different countries are all of the same period.

Mr. ATTLEE: The particular instance where I disproved his figures was when he was comparing one year with another without taking the slightest reference to the fact that prices had fallen during those years.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman has not disproved any one of the figures I gave, and, in spite of what he has said, I think his memory must have played him false in this matter. He
has not disproved a single one of the figures I gave in the Press or in this House on the question of Post Office costs. Whatever the Postmaster-General may think about my conclusions, I am glad to see that the Liberal party have arrived at the same conclusions. They say:
We believe it is absolutely impossible to secure the best results so long as the telephone service continues to be a part of of the Civil Service.
I am delighted to have the co-operation of the Liberal party in this matter, and I suggest that if they want a bigger telephone development—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord must not discuss the question of private or public control of the telephones on this Vote.

Viscount WOLMER: I recognise that the principle of Parliamentary control is more of a shadow than a substance, and, as we are not able to deal with this matter in all its aspects, I will content myself by saying that if hon. Members below the Gangway want, as I know they do, to see a rapid development of telephones in this country I hope they will join with me and others in pressing for a reform of the organisation under which the telephones are at present administered. We have it now on record that, in spite of the optimistic phrases of the Lord Privy Seal the other day, the present Postmaster-General is only counting on the same sort of telephone development in the next three years as has taken place in the last six years.

Mr. ATTLEE: This is the second time the Noble Lord has made the same misrepresentation. I must remind him that when I referred to the figures of development I was referring to the development in the past three years and that I hoped to improve upon them. He now says that it is on record that I am counting only on the same sort of telephone development in the next three years. I said nothing of the sort.

Viscount WOLMER: The Postmaster-General cannot get away from his own statement. He is asking for £32,000,000, which is going to last for three years, and he has 25 per cent. of spares. He points out that £32,000,000 now is worth about £36,000,000 a few years ago.
Taking his figures at £36,000,000 and his 25 per cent. of spare parts, you only get a rate of development on our telephones in the next three years of the same rate as we have had in the past few years.

Mr. ATTLEE: What does the Noble Lord mean by "the same sort of rate"?

Viscount WOLMER: I mean that when the hon. Gentleman has used every spare part and every shilling of this money we shall still be the eighth or ninth country in the rate of telephone development. It can be described as the rate of development. If the hon. Gentleman uses the whole of this money we shall be still eighth or ninth in the development of telephones among the countries of the world.

Mr. ATTLEE: That is not a rate of development.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman is not talking the same language as I am. The rate of development is the rate at which you develop, and, if we develop telephones at the rate for which the hon. Gentleman is allowing, and for which he is making financial provision, we shall still be in a position of complete telephone inferiority as compared with other countries in the world. The Socialist party accept that sort of position as one which they regard as tolerable, and are prepared to continue the administration on lines which brings about that result. They refuse to undertake the drastic reforms which alone can lead to a reduction of cost and a consequent reduction of charges, which will give any rapid telephone increase in this country.

Mr. BOWEN: The Noble Lord is always interesting, but the difficulty I find with him is that he never learns anything. We have had a good many Debates on this and kindred matters in the House, but it does not matter what figures or arguments are produced to the Noble Lord he is still unconvinced. He is firmly convinced, on the one hand, that the Post Office is no good for anything but postal matters. He is firmly convinced that, because it is controlled by Parliament, there is very little hope for the telephones so long as the Post Office has to come to Parliament for any money. I could accept a good deal of what he has said if I were conscious
that he or his right hon. Friend the late Postmaster-General had shown any real desire during their term of office to improve the telephones at the rate of expansion which he has outline to-day or bring about the drastic changes which he now seeks to make.
Undoubtedly there is some reason for criticism in the Post Office telephone system. I do not know of any system that we could not criticise. The strange thing about it is that, if it happens to be a system in any way connected with the State, it becomes a habit to criticise it. I suggest that, if the Noble Lord went down by train to his constituency to-morrow and something happened to delay him for half-an-hour, he would take it kindly and make no complaint. I am going to join him in something which he has said to-night, probably much to his surprise. I believe the proposal of the Postmaster-General might have been a little more courageous. I feel that there is a certain amount of departmental timidity and caution in the Resolution asking for money to the extent of £32,000,000. While I listened intently, I could not understand the difficulty of the Noble Lord in grasping the point of the Postmaster-General that he was proposing to spend more money in the next three years than had been spent in the previous three years. My trouble and difficulty is that it is not enough.
I should like to see more money spent on the development of telephones substantially throughout the country, first, because I believe it would mean an increase of employment, and, secondly, because I believe that in the long run the Post Office would get their money back. I am certain that, if the Noble Lord had his utility company, there would be no expansion at all, because it would be concerned about taking profits, and seeing that there were no overhead charges that were not met by income, and to such an extent that there would be no margin of any kind. I suggest that the real cause for the want of development of our telephones is the lack of demand. But the Noble Lord put it down to high charges and inferior service. The time will come when he must join the rest of us in saying that the service in this country will compare with the telephone service in any country.
It is useless going to the United States to seek comparisons in costs, when they have their own timber and other requirement. They have natural resources which we cannot hope to have. These difficulties on our side must add very substantially to the cost of our production. The money proposed, by comparison with the last few years is, in my humble submission, not sufficient—provided always that the House is prepared to take certain risks. If we cannot justify an expansion of the service or the investment of an increased amount of capital in the service, by improved service and increased traffic, there are certain risks to be taken into account. One risk is that the service as a whole, if capital charges are to be set against it, will not be able to show a surplus, will not be able to meet fully the overhead charges, however many attempts may be made to produce those economies.
In these circumstances, the House must face the possibility of running a subsidised telephone service for the benefit of the community. It has either to do that or have a very much more restricted telephone service, to be run at cost or to be run with a margin of profit, if you like, for a public utility company—a certain margin for future development. Unless it is found to be possible, I see no hope at all for improvement of any kind in the telephone service. I shall, however, give a few figures in order to indicate that, so far as I can see from what has been done in the past, the proposed development is not as extensive as it might be. In 1925–6 a sum of £10,807,000 was used as capital in net addition to telephone plant. In 1928–29 the figure was £9,289,000. In 1929–30 it had dropped to £8,907,000. My hon. Friend proposes that the expenditure for the next three years shall be at the rate of £11,000,000 per year. He is taking account also, I understand, for the improved value of money in comparison with previous years, and he might be able to spend more than £11,000,000 as prices come down. I commend him for that. He is indicating an increase upon previous years, contrary to what the Noble Lord has said. In actual fact he will in business get more value for his money than has been possible owing to the price of money and prices in previous years.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Committee must be satisfied that new business will be secured to justify expenditure. If new business can be secured by a reduction of charges, these charges must have some relation to costs. If the public demand a very cheap but a highly efficient service, they must pay for it, either directly or through taxation as a result of the margins or subsidies which may be given through money Resolutions in this House. There is no help for it. I agreed with my hon. Friend when he said that we have to develop the telephone service. I have already stated in this House that it is not always a question of charges, but a question of getting inculcated in the people the habit of using the telephone system. I would like to see a very substantial expansion of our rural area development, but I would like it to be understood that I would not find myself very happily in support of that development if it meant that it had to be at the expense of cheap labour. The Post Office do now—and I fear that a public utility company would more so—attempt to run their services by the use of labour at very cheap rates.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now covering a rather wider field than is permissible on this Vote, and other Members will desire to follow him if I permit him to develop that argument.

Mr. BOWEN: I did it unconsciously, and, following the Noble Lord, I was led astray. I suggest that if my hon. Friend has only one thing in mind—cautiously to improve the service, to expand its utility and to put further capital into it as traffic develops—he is on sound businesslike lines. If, however, he is joining with the Lord Privy Seal in the desire to have telephone extension to provide employment then I suggest that he is not going far enough. The Liberal proposal is to spend £95,000,000 in five years instead of £45,000,000, which is, roughly, the present rate of capital expenditure, and, of the additional £50,000,000, it is proposed that £30,000,000 should be concentrated on the first two years giving a two year programme of about £50,000,000 instead of less than £20,000,000. It is an ambitious proposition, based on the ex-
pectation that by sinking a huge amount of capital in rural area telephone development, you will induce the rural population to rise to it and use the telephone service.
I suggest that that is pure speculation and, as my hon. Friend proceeds on cautious lines, I would like him to consider whether or not, if we have to provide work for the unemployed, and if this is a means to that end, more money could not be spent quite safely—not sunk altogether, but expended in such a manner as to produce fruit in future years. He has told us that he has a 25 per cent. margin on hand. From a business point of view that is a serious thing. He cannot afford to have 25 per cent. on his hands for any considerable length of time, something will have to be done to utilise it. The suggestion was made by a right hon. Gentleman opposite the other day that there should be an increase in the number of canvassing officers in order to produce new business. That is a commendable proposition, but I would go further than that. I would be prepared to take some risks. I think the telephone service would stand the taking of a risk, but we ought to take that risk with our eyes open, and as we have had the assurance of the Noble Lord that he on his side—and I am sure he can influence his party—would agree to the expenditure of a larger sum of money, I hope that my hon. Friend will go right ahead and will not fear any profound criticism on the ground that he is spending too much. It means either that or nothing at all. It either means that it is a sound business proposition or that it is nothing more than captious criticism.
We must "get down to brass tacks" in the consideration of this question. It is wholly a question of finance combined with the propositions which we have in our minds regarding the expansion of business. If we cannot justify the use of capital by an assurance of increased business in some form or another, then we are not justified in using it at all. If we cannot justify the reduction of charges on the ground of cost, then we cannot expect that the business population or the population of the rural areas will take up telephones unless the overhead charges or a bigger margin of them are met by this House. We have to
make up our minds, finally, whether the telephones are to be run on considerations of cost, whether they are to be run on considerations as to a margin, or whether they are to be run almost regardless of cost and regardless of whether there is a margin or not, the House, meantime, facing up to the question of subsidy. These are the propositions which arise on this occasion and which arise from the proposition of the Noble Lord. I regret that my hon. Friend has not gone further, but I commend him for having gone further than we have gone during the last three years. I hope it is not too late to suggest that further development of the telephone service can be undertaken with due regard, however—I must make this final reservation—to the people who are called upon to do the work, so that they shall not be brought in on anything like cheap labour rates.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The House always listens with interest to the lion-Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) who speaks as an expert and when he says that he regrets that progress in this matter has been so slow, one may be quite sure that he is making a cautious statement. I congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on two counts, the first being that he handed such a bouquet to the Liberal policy of telephone development in connection with the unemployment programme and the second, that he made such a moderate speech. His attack on the Government was restrained and conservative and quite out of proportion to the needs of the case. I thought that the Postmaster-General grew impatient quite unnecessarily. Indeed the hon. Gentleman ought to be very angry with himself, and I am sure that when he has been a few months longer in his present position he will be very concerned about the speech which he made to-night. I was horrified to hear the unfolding of the great policy which the Lord Privy Seal adumbrated the other day.
I asked a question yesterday as to the amount spent on telephone development for the last three years and the answer showed that in 1928–29 the amount was £10,199,000; in 1929–30 it was 10,054,000—a decrease—and in 1930–31 it was esti-
mated at £10,000,000. And surely the talk about a fall in prices is a most piteous argument. I have never heard a Service Minister presenting an Estimate which was about the same as the previous year's, saying that we were really spending more because prices had fallen. The argument always used on those occasions is that we have managed to save a little and the Labour Government is saving money on the Fighting Services. We cannot allow the Postmaster-General to get away with the argument about a fall in prices. I do not know if I was right in understanding the Postmaster-General to give an estimate of £9,600,000 for telephone development in 1931. He divided an average of £10,000,000, as I understood, over three years in certain categories, and I gathered that some £9,000,000 was in respect of telephone development.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think I gave a figure nearer £11,000,000 than £9,000,000.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: For the whole?

Mr. ATTLEE: Yes, all except £2,800,000 was telephones.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Then it is worse than I thought. It is less than £9,000,000 on telephones, compared with £10,000,000 last year and £10,199,000 in 1928–29.

Mr. ATTLEE: The point is that the total calculation is in the neighbourhood of between £33,000,000 and £34,000,000 of expenditure because of a certain amount in hand. If we take away from that sum £2,800,000 it leaves about £31,000,000.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I think that makes the case rather worse. You can judge this matter on two grounds. You can judge the amount of money that should be expended, from an ordinary business point of view, taking the telephone needs of this country in relation to the development in other countries. That is one way. Taken on that view alone, this amount is piteous. Another view earl be taken. We can say that distress in this country is such, and unemployment is so great, that we ought to try and expedite all revenue-producing schemes such as telephones. On that view, the rate of planning ahead is lamentable, and, if you combine both views, it is tragic. I am amazed that, within a few days of
the Lord Privy Seal making his statement, the Postmaster-General should come here and waste the time of the Committee in putting forward a demand for £33,000,000 to be spent over three years, which is rather less, leaving out the fall in prices, than the average spent for the last three years. The Postmaster-General has admitted that after two years of a Labour Government there was a surplus of £1,500,000 on telephone development.
The need was as urgent two years ago as it is now. The Noble Lord gave figures to show how Great Britain was falling behind her commercial rivals. The United States have 158 telephones per 1,000 of the population. We have 36. Even Denmark has 93, so that it is not a question of area. When the United States, as the Noble Lord pointed out, added telephone development as part of their unemployment programme, they added 40 per cent. to the normal programme of £100,000,000, and spent last year £140,000,000, as corn-pared with our £10,000,000, which will fall to £9,000,000, leaving out the fall in the price of materials. I do not want to criticise the Postmaster-General; it is quite clear that he is speaking from a brief that has been supplied to him, as to every other Postmaster-General at every triennial period. I have no doubt that when he gets down to it, he will, with the great ability that he has shown on other matters, add 100 per cent. to the rate of acceleration. Like the Noble Lord, I misunderstood what he said about the rate of increase of telephone subscribers. I was under the impression that the figure of 125,000 was mentioned, but he made that explanation of the rate of increase which is expected.
Anyone who views this from the Post Office standpoint would say that, economically speaking, we are entitled to expect a rate of increase of 200,000 or even 250,000. In fact, the experts whom we consulted in "We can tackle unemployment," put the increase at 300,000. The Postmaster-General may smile, but some of the greatest expert telephone engineers in the country were consulted before that estimate was made. It may be an exaggerated estimate, but let us say at least that we can get an increase of 200,000 subscribers per year. Has the Postmaster-General calculated what will
be the increase with the money to be voted by this Resolution? I agree with the noble Lord that, whether the Postmaster-General said 120,000 or not, it will be something about that, and probably not quite as much. It is not a question of administration. It arises out of the policy very closely connected with the vote of this money.
The Lord Privy Seal said he was embarking on a big advertising campaign in order to increase telephone development. I have in my hand what I presume is one of the first series of leaflets arising out of the new push policy. I do not know what the picture on the front page is intended to mean. It might mean anything. It is the picture of a man emerging from a hole in a pavement with a long pipe in his hand. How that is going to persuade anyone to consider using a telephone I do not know. [Interruption.] I am given to understand that it is American, but I can show the Postmaster-General many other types of American advertisement which will increase subscribers more effectively than this one. The American would show on the front page a picture of a charming lady smoking a certain brand of cigarette, the makers of which would pay for the whole advertisement. You might depict a long-distance talk between a British business man and someone in Buenos Ayres, or a farmer ringing up the local market asking for the price of cattle. This extraordinary and suggestive advertisement is the right colour being in red, but it will not add one subscriber. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give attention to this side of telephone development, because it is the most important side, as he knows. I hope, too, that he will consult some of the leading advertising firms, and not rely on the advice of his Department. The Postmaster-General used big words, and said we must go well ahead of demand and go out for business. As far as I am concerned, the Government will go out but for not doing business.

Mr. EDMUNDS: I hope that the Postmaster-General will press this development scheme with great vigour. I am informed by those who are engaged in the engineering department of the Post Office that many discharges are im-
minent in the South Wales district, which I represent. That naturally fills them with great alarm. I do not altogether rely upon that rumour, but when I look at the Post Office Estimates, I find that in the engineering and telephone department, a reduction in the number employed is provided for.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Robert Young): The hon. Member is not in order in dealing with that point.

Mr. EDMUNDS: I was only drawing attention to it in order to show that there is some concern whether this programme of development will be pursued with vigour. If the Post Office are estimating for a reduced number of unemployed in this department, it does not square very well with the programme of development as indicated in this Financial Resolution. I simply rise in order to put that point to the Postmaster-General, and to ask him to press forward with the development in order that these discharges will not take place, and that his Department may contribute something really solid to the solution of our unemployment problem.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: I should not have risen had it not been for the intervention of the Postmaster-General a little while ago, not so much for the intervention itself, as for the light which he threw on a practice with which we are all too familiar in these Post Office Debates—the practice of Ministers thinking that they have dismissed detailed statistics when they have made a few vague general remarks about them. The late Postmaster-General claimed that he had refuted the figures advanced by my Noble Friend in a certain Debate, and adduced as proof that he had defeated the Noble Lord by a certain number of votes. I do not know since when it has become the custom to estimate the truth and the force of speeches in this House by the number of people who vote for the Minister concerned. If that is to be the test most of the propositions advanced by the Government in the last Parliament must partake of the nature of eternal truth. Surely that is too petty an argument for the right hon. Gentleman to advance to the House. I have looked up the Debate referred to, and find that the late Postmaster-General
dealt with only two of the figures produced by my Noble Friend. In the case of the Swedish figures he said, "You must always remember that Sweden has a priority rate." I am not reading the whole of his remarks about Sweden. Does anybody who knows the telephone system in foreign countries by experience suggest that the existence of a priority rate invalidates arguments as to relative costs?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I would like to point out that I explained what the Swedish system was, and explained that if we adopted the Swedish system here we should destroy all rural development of telephones in this country.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman did not explain that, he asserted it. He said that if we applied the Swedish conditions to this country the greater part of our rural telephone developments would be wiped out, but he did not explain why.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I had given the reasons.

Lord E. PERCY: I think not. I will read what the right hon. Gentleman actually said:
I take one instance, because it has been the most frequently quoted in this Debate, the comparison with Sweden. I would point out that the Swedish rate which has been quoted is the ordinary rate, but that in Sweden if you want to he sure that your message will go immediately"—
an assurance which we never have in this country—
you have to pay the priority rate,"—
I wish to Heaven I had the opportunity of doing so!
which is twice the rate we have heard quoted here. Rural rates in Sweden have also been quoted more than once, but in this country we establish a rural exchange if eight subscribers can be found, whereas in Sweden, unless they can obtain 50 subscribers, those who wish to establish an exchange have to provide the equipment, provide the junction lines to the exchange, and pay the operator. Sweden has been quoted to us as an example of the method of developing rural telephones. If we applied Swedish conditions to this country the greater part of our rural telephone development would be wiped out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1930; col. 562, Vol. 235.]

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Exactly.

Lord E. PERCY: Those conditions would wipe it out? Yes, if the Post Office insisted on always providing its own lines in every rural exchange; but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if he adopted the Swedish system, and allowed private persons to provide the lines, he would get much more development and much cheaper development.

Mr. LEES-SMITH indicated dissent.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman suggests that he would not, but he must know that there are many customers of the Post Office who have wished to do this for years, and have not been allowed to do so. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: There has been practically only one customer of any substance who has wished to do it.

Lord E. PERCY: But the right hon. Gentleman has never gone out and looked for them. We who are customers of the Post Office know that there are many more than the Post Office has ever heard of. In these matters the Post Office has no imagination; that is what makes it different from the Post Office in Sweden. The Post Office in this country assume that you cannot, by offering decent terms, get 50 subscribers, and therefore they have to come down to the measly number of eight. [Interruption.] I think that is quite Parliamentary.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: It is a good, wholesome word.

Lord E. PERCY: They assume that people here will not do what they do in Sweden, provide their own lines, but they have no sort of reason for saying so. It is only an instance of what we who have had anything to do with Government Departments know so well—that there are a great many things which a Department will not even contemplate the possibility of, and the function of a Minister is to make a Department contemplate the possibility of things which they have assumed to be impossible. If the Minister does not perform that function he performs no useful function at all, and might just as well not be there.
I must come to the right hon. Gentleman's other instance, because I am sure it will interest the present Postmaster-General, who attaches such importance
to the question of comparative costs. The late Postmaster-General thought it sufficient to say that he had refuted my Noble Friend on the subject of the United States by admitting, as he did admit, that the capital cost of a telephone in the United States is £47, and in this country £67. He explained that by saying that a great deal of our development in this country was underground, although I think he rather exaggerated the importance of that factor. He then said that if you take the annual cost, allowing for depreciation and interest, of a telephone in the United States and a telephone in this country, it works out at £9.17 in this country and £10.97 in the United States. The Postmaster-General prides himself on the fact that while the capital cost in this country is more than twice what it is in the United States at a comparative level of prices, the annual cost is only rather more in the United States than it is in this country. That he regards as a refutation of my Noble Friend's figures. That is the kind of off-hand bureaucratic argument to which we are getting accustomed in this House; it is offered as a sufficient answer to really serious business arguments.
I assure the Committee that there is no party question about this, because we do not claim on this side of the House that we did with telephone developments what ought to have been done. We are claiming that we have now realised that so long as the present system continues, the system under which you depend for your finance on Treasury considerations which depend not merely on the business prospects of the Post Office but on the general public credit and the level of War Loan; and so long as you are tied to the Civil Service organisation of the Post Office—I am referring to the managing staff and not talking of the operators—rather than to the organisation adopted by the most progressive businesses of this country, which give due managerial position to the technicians, so long will you not get any efficient development.
Our complaint against the present Government is that they are perfectly conservatively satisfied with the present position, and when any of us makes these criticisms, they think the veriest off-hand arguments are sufficient—arguments which would not be considered for one moment by any meeting of shareholders if they were advanced by the
chairman of an industrial company. Surely this House of Commons should be at least as intelligent as a body of shareholders—one of the least intelligent assemblies. I do implore the Postmaster-General to try to deal with the criticisms made upon his business in the spirit in which the chairman of an industrial company would meet criticisms by the shareholders. I do not ask for any greater courtesy than that, or for a greater sense of responsibility than that, hut really, when the late Postmaster-General said that the accuracy of his remarks and of the defence of his policy was proved by the fact that he got a majority of the Members of this House to go into the Lobby at the behest of the party whips, he was really conducting a line of argument of which any chairman of any decent industrial company in this country would be ashamed.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): The discussion this evening has been exceedingly interesting. I do not think the Postmaster-General will for one moment fear any of the criticisms levelled at the Department. On each occasion on which he has had the opportunity of speaking in this House so far he has stood up to criticisms, and been able to give a good reply on behalf of the Department. I do feel that often the criticisms made here are not as fair as they might be. I often think that some of our greatest concerns would do very much better if they were criticised to the extent that the Post Office is criticised in this House and out-side. The criticisms levelled here from time to time, and the comparisons which hon. Members attempt to draw, are often unreal. Comparisons have been drawn this evening between circumstances in Sweden, in America and this country. Take America. We are confronted with entirely different circumstances here in regard to the installation of the telephone service. In the town-planning of America the architect who is responsible for the designing of buildings always takes into consideration the installation of the telephone service. In the cities of America, they take no exception to the overhead system. They make provision between their blocks of buildings for telephone equipment.
Immediately you embark on the development or installation of telephone wires in any town or rural area in this country, you come up against the county councils and the local authorities who want you to put the wires underground. I do not say it is their fault, but it is characteristic of the British temperament. Furthermore, we have repeatedly received requests in this House from hon. Members on behalf of local authorities to avoid overhead wires, though they wanted a cheap telephone service none the less. A private company would not be permitted to do this any more than the Post Office. As a matter of fact, I think the Post Office is in a position to erect overhead wires far more readily than a private company would be, for we have certain powers, and we are in a position to exercise them from time to time. If we are going to draw comparisons, let us have real comparisons and proper analogies. I am speaking of the method of equipment, and the ways and means that are available and the difficulties that are put in the way of our own telephone service by the local authorities. I have not in mind the points which, apparently, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) had in mind. I am speaking of the capital expenditure involved in the installation of equipment compared with America, Sweden, Germany and other countries.
We have been criticised this evening because we are anticipating development at the rate of 120,000 subscribers during the forthcoming year. If we get that number we shall be developing at the same rate and to the same extent that development has taken place in America in the past 12 months. That, no doubt, is information to the Noble Lord. In Germany, the development last year showed that the number of new subscribers was 60,000. We are making up the leeway. The Noble Lord said that during the last of the three years of his administration the increase in subscribers amounted to 122,000. Let him remember that he had a remarkable opportunity of making up the arrears which accrued during the War years. We have not that opportunity, for we have been competing against trade depression. Our chances of development have been minimised to that extent.
The whole Debate has progressed along the line of assuming that £32,000,000 was all that we were likely to spend in the development of the telephone service during the next three years. That is all we are asking for at the moment, but it would be wrong to assume that we are satisfied with that rate of development. We are prepared to come to this House in six months' time, and ask for more money if the Noble Lord and his colleagues will assist us in increasing the development to an extent which would justify us in asking for further money.

Viscount WOLMER: Why did the Postmaster-General say that that was the provision for the next three years?

Mr. VIANT: That statement was made on the assumption that the development was not going to be intensive, but my hon. Friend would not be justified in sinking expenditure into the earth for which he is not going to get any return. For this reason, his prudence should be appreciated by the Committee, and I do not think that the Postmaster-General should be criticised in that respect. We are anticipating, and we are going to see that the number of subscribers is increased, and my hon. Friend would be prepared to meet Members of this House in older to give them all the information at his disposal to enable them to become missionaries in the development of the telephone service. My hon. Friend would welcome their help and assistance in that respect.
When this Estimate is criticised, I ask hon. Members to remember that, in addition to the purchasing power of money having increased, and in addition to an improved organisation and improved methods of construction and direction, we have reduced our charges by anything up to 20 per cent. That needs to be taken into account when considering the sum which we are asking the Committee to vote this evening. All that arises very largely as a result of the consideration which has been given to improved methods of construction, and undoubtedly a great deal of valuable information was obtained as a result of the visit of the commission to America. The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot, when he is making use of comparative figures from other countries visited by the commission, must hear in mind that that information
was the result of private conversations, and that the commission obtained that information on the understanding that it was to be confidential. I hope the Noble Lord will bear that in mind in the future.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman surely does not accuse me of making public any information which ought not to be made public. The hon. Member seems to suggest that I have made public something which ought not to be made public. There are many important facts to which it is necessary to draw the attention of the public.

Mr. VIANT: The facts mentioned by the Noble Lord were contained in a confidential document, and I think the Noble Lord might have appreciated that it was confidential.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Member surely does not suggest that what I have done is a breach of confidence.

Mr. VIANT: The document itself containing the evidence was to be treated confidentially, and the evidence was given upon that understanding. In reply to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Shakespeare), I would like to draw his attention to the White Paper which was issued to Members of the House and which showed that it was estimated that £29,200,000 would be required for the telephone service and £2,800,000 for the postal and telegraph services. The hon. Member for Norwich asked if the £2,800,000 was to be taken each year for the Postal and Telegraph Services. That is not so.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I was dealing with the three years percentage of £29,200,000. I divided that by three, which shows just over £9,000,000 spent, and barely £10,000,000 last year.

Mr. VIANT: Added to that, there is approximately £2,000,000 which we had in hand. I assumed from the speech of the hon. Member for Norwich that he was under the impression that this £2,800,000 had to be deducted each year and that it was not the aggregate sum, but I am pleased to know that he was not under that impression. I wish to impress upon hon. Members that, if this sum is spent before the date which is anticipated, we are at liberty to come to the. House and ask for a further sum.
With regard to what has been said about the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, it should be understood that in co-operation with my hon. Friend we have certain schemes under way, and I hope we shall get, a real push on with telephone development. In regard to that development, we must justify the expenditure to the House and that must be borne in mind on all occasions. I have now done my best to answer all the questions that have been put to me.

Mr. WALLACE: I gather from the speeches which have been made on this Vote that there is disappointment in all parts of the House in regard to the sum asked for in this Vote. After listening to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, I have concluded that they would have been well satisfied if the Government had asked for £100,000,000. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen), I am exceedingly cautious in regard to the policy which the Government are pursuing at the moment. I do not say that that policy is wrong, but I wish they had justified why it was so little and why not more as I think hon. Members were expecting. My hon. Friend who has just spoken has not met the criticism which came from the benches opposite. I was glad that the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy.) had no complaint to make about the operators, but he complained about the management. I understood that he meant by the term "management" the higher officers in the Service—the First and Second Secretaries of the Post Office, the Assistant Secretaries, and the principals. I do not know whether it is the policy of the Postmaster-General, either the previous one or the present one, to bring those men together so that they may operate in the way in which a board of directors would operate for a public utility company. If that method has not been explored, I think that it ought to be explored. May I also make the suggestion that even the management might be stimulated if they were to have more courage and more faith in the common sense and knowledge of the operators, who have suggestion to make? Neither the previous Government nor this Government has yet made the fullest use of the capacity that is there to he utilised whenever we get a Postmaster-General who will rise to the occasion.
The Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) explained the smallness of the amount mentioned in the Resolution either by the action of the Treasury in imposing a limit or by the fact that there was no demand for telephones. I think there is a huge demand for the telephone service when you can bring it within the capacity of the spending power of the people. I wish that my hon. Friend who replied to this Debate had told the House, and T want this point cleared up, does the Treasury prevent the Post Office from expanding Is it or is it not true? After all, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot was an Assistant Postmaster-General, and, so far as the higher administration is concerned, he ought to know more about it than I do. I believe he does, and time and time again he has repeated this charge that the Treasury imposes a limit on the development of the Post Office. Frankly, I want to see a Labour Government—

Viscount WOLMER: I have never said that the Treasury refused to give money for the development of the Post Office to meet the present demand. What I have said is that the Treasury could not finance Post Office development on the scale that you get in America and other highly developed countries without upsetting the arrangements for the conversion of National Debt and the national finance transactions.

Mr. WALLACE: I did not suggest that the Noble Lord had stated that the Treasury had refused. I think his suggestion was that in this case there had, shall we say, been a Treasury representation which had imposed a limit, and I understand imposing a limit to mean, in this connection, a limitation upon the possibilities of development of the telephone service.

Viscount WOLMER: I asked the Postmaster-General that question. I wanted to know, and I am equally disappointed that he did not reply.

Mr. ATTLEE: I will reply now. As the Noble Lord knows perfectly well, an estimate has to be made for a series of years. If I ran short, I should go to the Treasury again with confidence that they would supply what was needed for the Government's proposals.

Mr. WALLACE: I am glad to have that statement, but I did gather, when the Postmaster-General spoke, that he was following the policy of his predecessor, that is to say, that the expenditure was to be spread over a period of three years. I ask myself why, in these times, it should be three years. There is no reason why this Government should follow the precedent of the previous Government if the circumstances have changed. I was very glad to hear the Assistant Postmaster-General declare that, if necessary, the Government would come back to the House in six months and ask for more, but, if it is felt that he may come back in six months and ask for more, it seems to me that it might have, been put in now. However, I am very glad to hear that statement.
This Debate has been mainly upon the telephone service, and I appreciate that that is very important, but I have noticed that the allocation of capital for expenditure on telegraphs has been steadily diminishing. I know that there is a transfer of traffic from telegraphs to telephones. I do not know at what rate that transfer is proceeding, but that seems to me to be an additional reason for increasing the amount of money expended in the development of the telephone service.
I have only one other point to raise. The amount to be expended on the postal and telegraph side is about £2,800,000. I gathered from the Postmaster-General that money was to be expended on buildings, and I venture to suggest that £10,000,000 might very well be spent on Post Office buildings. I understand that the money will be spent on the Class II offices. I have been in the city of Birmingham, where there are offices which are not a credit to the Post Office. I think it was two years ago that I went into the sub-office at Oldbury, in Birmingham. The administration admits that new building is required, but my information is that the building operations have not yet begun.
There is ample scope for spending money on Post Office buildings. Let me give the House one illustration in conclusion. At Plymstock a new sorting office was needed, and that question was under consideration from 1927 on into 1930. Various reasons were given for the delay in beginning the work. The ques-
tion had to be considered by the Office of Works, and I have no doubt that the Treasury had to be consulted also. It takes too long for the Department to give us these buildings, and I want to suggest to my hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that he can help to relieve the unemployment in the building trade by speeding up the erection of the new post offices which are required. There are many offices in this country where the Post Office business is an incidental; there is hardly room for the public to transact Post Office business in a number of offices around the City of Birmingham. I say that that is not creditable to the Post Office. There is a point in development, surely, where, for the sake of the credit of the Department and the convenience of the public, a new building should be erected; but, instead of that, sometimes the Post Office business appears to be a sort of second-hand business to a newspaper agent. That is not good enough for the Post Office. I appeal to the Postmaster-General to speed up the erection of new offices. I have a list of places—Birmingham, Leeds and other big centres—that need them. I am glad to hear the admission that the Treasury provides what the Postmaster-General asks for, and I hope he will be successful in his demand from the Treasury for getting on with new buildings. I suggest, in that, connection, that he would introduce a very welcome change if, in erecting buildings, the Post Office would make them big enough to let out portions and earn revenue instead of paying rent to other owners.

Mr. E. BROWN: The Committee have listened with great interest to the hon. Member. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, if he has not looked into Plymstock, will do so during the week. I can give him another illustration of the kind of thing of which the hon. Member has been speaking. Right opposite Mount Pleasant there is a narrow grocer's shop at a busy corner with a little counter where two girls work under very difficult conditions. It is a very busy centre at certain times of the day, and, if the hon. Gentlemen will pay a surprise visit, he will see the kind of thing that is in the minds of hon. Members. They are really a little exasperated when Ministers assume a kindly sort of superior air, as if
criticism ought not to be welcome. When the hon. Gentleman seems a little irritated at criticism and so desirous of defending his officials, I am reminded of a story of Sir William Harcourt. He once told a Minister, "You are there to tell the public officials what the general public will not stand." That is why we are here. We cannot tell the officials ourselves, but we are here to tell the Minister what the general public feels, and I have no doubt that on this matter of the development of the Post Office the general public feels very strongly.
With regard to telephone development, it is not formulae that are wanted. There is not a Member in the House who has not had in his constituency cases such as I have had of discharges of telephone engineers in busy cities—I have communicated with the Postmaster-General about constituents of mine—in great cities where there is a vast potential demand, but we are put off every time. The Assistant Postmaster-General comes from Devonshire. He is likely to be cautious, but he ought to be bold as well. I would add my small word to that of the Noble Lord and others who have asked the Postmaster-General not to treat criticism as unfriendly, but as representing what is felt in the constituencies, that in this time of great unemployment there should be a far-sighted, programme, not merely for three years, within the duration of a particular Parliament, but to meet the needs of a potential demand. If sufficient energy and drive is put into it there might be an immense expansion in the most valuable telephone service.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE AND EAST AFRICA LOANS [GUARANTEE].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend Subsection (2) of Section one of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act 1926, by inserting after the words passing of this Act,' in paragraph (c) of the said Sub-section, the words other than charges in respect of loans previously guaranteed under this Act.'"—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

10.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I
feel sure that very few words will suffice to recommend the Motion to the Committee. The necessity for it, and of the Bill which will be founded upon it, arises from a small technical flaw in the Act of 1926, in which provision was not made for the case where one of the territories desires to raise more than a single loan. In consequence of that contingency not having been foreseen, the Act was drawn up on the basis that the charge of the loan must be prior to all other charges except those that existed before 1926. As long as only a single loan was in contemplation, that was a perfectly reasonable position, but where, as has actually been the case in Tanganyika, a second loan is desirable over and above the first, it will be found that that provision works unfortunately, because, when it comes to floating a second loan, the terms of the Act cannot be adequately complied with. If a second loan was given priority over all other charges except those that existed in 1926, it would necessarily be given priority over the previous loan. If, on the other hand, the first loan was given priority over the second, the conditions would not be complied with so far as the second loan is concerned.
You get a, kind of Alice-in-Wonderland position where you cannot satisfy the conditions of the Act so far as one loan is concerned without breaking them so far as the other is concerned. For that reason, it is necessary to make a very slight modification, and this Resolution provides the way out. So far as the second loan is concerned, it is proposed to give its charge priority over everything except those that existed before 1926 and, so far as the first loan is concerned, by making that very small alteration this technical flaw is done away with, and we can enable Tanganyika to raise a second loan for the purpose of development as the Colony desires. I trust that with that brief explanation I have made it clear what the difficulty was and the way in which it is proposed to deal with it, and I hope the Committee will see fit to agree to the Resolution.

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: If I understood a rather technical question correctly, it is this: Tanganyika desires to raise a loan. The loan cannot be a first
charge under the Act of 1926 because there is a first charge already in existence, and for the same reason the loan for which it now requires a guarantee cannot rank pari passu with a first charge already existing. The new loan, therefore, must be a second charge. A second charge is ultra, vires the Act of 1926 as it stands at present, and therefore this small technical alteration in the Act of 1926 is intended to make legal and authorise what is in effect a second charge; but the second charge, if created, involves the Treasury in no fresh liability, and it follows that any subsequent unguaranteed loans which may be raised do not rank either equally with or in priority to the loans which I have described. If that is the proposition, we on this side raise no objection to the Resolution.
I would, however, like to take this opportunity of asking a few questions, to which I think the Committee would like to have the answers, because they are of interest in connection with Tanganyika and are very relevant to the question of this loan. The Act of 1926, which I have before me, provides that a sum not exceeding £10,000,000 may be raised by five Governments and may be guaranteed by the Imperial Government, and of these five Governments Tanganyika is one. The first question that I want to ask is this: How much of this £10,000,000 authorised by the Act of 1926 has already been raised, and how much is outstanding? The Schedule to the Act states that the purposes to which the proceeds of these loans may be devoted are threefold—first, railways; secondly, harbour construction and port improvements; and, thirdly, roads and other works development. The next question, therefore, that I want to ask is: To what purposes, in fact, has the sum already guaranteed been devoted? Has it been devoted to railways, or public buildings, or harbours, or all three? If all three, I should like to know quite generally what proportion has been devoted to each of them. Next, what is the amount which Tanganyika now proposes to raise? The hon. Gentleman did not tell us that. He simply said, as explained in the White Paper, that Tanganyika is now in a position to raise a further loan, but
he did not tell us the amount which Tanganyika actually proposes to raise under Treasury guarantee.
The next question that I would like to ask—and this is rather important—is this: Has the money, or any part of it, which it is now proposed to guarantee, already been spent, or is it desired in respect of new expenditure which has not yet been undertaken? I believe, although I speak without very deep knowledge of the matter, that it is customary sometimes for Colonial Governments to raise money, it may he, from the Crown Agents or other sources, and afterwards to repay it by the proceeds of loans such as that which we are now considering. Therefore, I want to ask how much of this money, if any, has already been spent, or is it all to be used for new purposes? My last question is this: There is rather a curious statement, which I think requires some little explanation, in the fourth paragraph of the White Paper, which reads as follows:
Subsequently to 1928, however, certain territories mentioned in the 1926 Act decided not to raise loans under that Act but to-borrow on their own credit without guarantee.
The territories mentioned in the Act are Kenya, Uganda, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, and Tanganyika. Which of those five territories so mentioned in the Act have decided not to raise loans but to borrow on their own credit without guarantee? I would like to know why it is that those territories have decided that the guarantee of the British Government is not presumably either desirable or necessary? It cannot, of course, be that their own credit is better than that of the British Government, but if that is not the explanation, what is it? Is it that they have abandoned their claim to the guarantee of the British Government in consequence of restrictions that have been placed upon them by the British Government? If so, I would like to ask what those restrictions are. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give me answers to all these questions, which I think are relevant to a Resolution of this kind, which, after all, involves a very considerable sum of money, and I think it is information which the Committee as a whole would desire to have.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: We are told in the memorandum, and the hon. Gentleman has also explained, that Tanganyika has a further issue in contemplation. Can he tell us whether Tanganyika has a specific object in this issue? I gather, from the absence of the Under-Secretary of State, that no explanation is contemplated of the purpose to which this issue is to be put, but I submit that this is an opportunity to obtain information with regard to these matters. In particular, I wish to ask whether part of this issue at any rate is to be devoted to southern railway development in Tanganyika. We have had a report from the Commission, which went out last year, and that Commission recommended strongly, as was recommended by the Ormsby-Gore Commission of 1924, that a southern railway should be constructed from some point on the Central Railway near Kilosa. It is interesting to see a reference to this, in the "Times" report this morning of the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the representatives of the Tanganyika settlers.
The question I want to ask is, is there in contemplation the use of at least part of this new issue to construct this railway, or is this railway going to be constructed by a grant under the Colonial Development Act? This railway has been recommended repeatedly, and undoubtedly the effect of its construction would be not only to develop Southern Tanganyika, and in particular to give an opportunity for white settlement in the Southern Highlands, but also to create a demand for railways and other material in this country. I am glad to see the return of the Under-Secretary of State, and it would be extremely interesting if he could give an explanation upon that point.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Perhaps I can explain the matter on behalf of my hon. Friend. As this was largely a financial matter, he asked me to deal with it, and I propose to answer the questions which have been put as far as possible. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, asked me how much of the £10,000,000 which we were prepared to guarantee had already been taken up as far as loans were concerned? The answer is, that the only loan so far is one of £2,070,000 to Tanganyika. No other
loans have been taken up. He then asked me upon what the money has been spent. It has mainly been spent upon railways—the completion of the Moshi-Arusha railway, of the railway from Manyoni to Kinyangiri, of the Engare-Nairobi Railway, and realignments. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Zambesi Bridge"?] The Zambesi Bridge is not included in this territory. He then asked me what was the amount it was now proposed to raise for Tanganyika in the second loan, and the answer is, that the recent loan ordinance authorises the raising of £2,850,000. I understand that it is all in respect of Northern Tanganyika. About £1,900,000 will be spent on railways, £400,000 on harbours and ports, also including the steamer on Lake Tanganyika, £250,000 on roads and £250,000 on other public works. If it is found desirable to raise a loan on behalf of Southern Tanganyika, it will have to form the subject of another loan.
I was next asked whether any part of this money has already been expended by borrowing from another source. £1,000,000 has been borrowed from the Crown agents in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggested might be possible, and it will be repaid out of the loan when it is floated. With reference to paragraph 4 in the White Paper, in regard to other territories which have decided not to make use of the procedure involved in the Act of 1926, he asked what were the grounds on which they had taken that line. He asked whether there were restrictions which had induced them to prefer to borrow on their own credit. I understand that no restrictions were put forward, but that they preferred to do it in that way. Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Uganda are territories where they do not propose to make use of the Government guarantee. I hope, after this explanation, that the Committee will now see their way to pass the Resolution.

Lord E. PERCY: I took some part in connection with the Colonial Development Act nearly two years ago, and I am afraid that this Resolution is another of the deep sea fruit which the Government have offered us in the way of unemployment policy. I should like to recall the attention of the House to what we were told two years ago about the operation of this Palestine and East
African Loans Act. I am not going to refer to the other aspect of the Colonial Development Act. I shall confine myself to the Amendment made in the Palestine and East African Act. The present Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, who was then Lord Privy Seal, speaking in the Debate on the Address in 1929, said:
I am announcing to the House that I shall be asking power in this Parliament in this Session, before July ends, to alter and amend the Palestine and East African Loans Act. The first object of altering that Act is because there is a million pounds' worth of schemes that can be got on with right away by allowing us to pay the interest and capital during the construction period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 107, Vol. 229.]
When we came to the discussion on the Bill, he said:
Our experience is that many of the Colonies are unable at this moment to go on with any work, because in the period in which they are unremunerative, the period of construction, they are unable to meet the burden. We are altering the Act so that during the period of construction the interest charges may be paid out of capital."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1929; col. 1261, Vol. 229.]
We now discover that, in spite of all this energy and all these glittering promises, so far from £1,000,000 being spent right away, the Government having amended the Act have been dangling the bait, in front of the Colonies for two mortal years, without getting a single bite. The one loan raised under the Palestine and East African Loans Act was in 1928, and nothing has been raised as a consequence of this much heralded amendment of the Act in 1926. Now, we are asked to make an alteration in the Act for the one ewe lamb, Tanganyika, which is the only Colony that we could get to take advantage of all our offers. Is not that a most extraordinary situation? Does it not show how we wasted our time discussing the Colonial Development Bill, with all the parade of paraphernalia and with great hopes and great promises, when, two years afterwards, we find that we might just as well never have discussed it at all? It has not had one single effect.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies what has happened to the £1,000,000 worth of schemes which were to be got on with right away. Does it fall into the same
category as the seven famous ships which the right hon. Gentleman the present Dominions Secretary paraded when he came back from Canada, or the Liverpool Street extension of another hon. Member? We are entitled to some explanation. This is the second occasion this week when the general professions of the Government of a great development policy have been disproved by the detailed measures they have brought before the House of Commons; and it must be remembered that this particular development problem is not one which has been contested by any party in the House. We have always been willing to spend money, and we have voted £10,000,000 in 1926, which has not yet been used. What has happened to all the promises the Government have made?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The speech of the Noble Lord, made with the air of superior authority which he adopts, is entirely beside the point. The £1,000,000 of which he has spoken is entirely separate, and a great deal of it has been spent. It does not conic into the question we are considering to-day. It is an entirely different matter, and on the appropriate occasion we shall be able to go into it.

Lord E. PERCY: If we are going to adopt the tone which seems to be peculiar to Members of the Treasury Bench let me read again the quotation from the Lord Privy Seal. He said:
Having examined those schemes in conjunction with all the Departments, I am announcing to the House that I shall he asking power in this Parliament, in this Session, before July ends, to alter and amend the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act. The first, object of altering that Act is bcause there is a million pounds' worth of schemes that can be got on with right away by allowing us to pay the interest on capital during the construction period."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1929; col. 107, Vol. 229.]
Now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury says that the million pounds' worth has nothing whatever to do with the East Africa Loans Act or with the payment of interest on capital during the construction period. Who are we to believe in this Government? The man who speaks to-day or the man who spoke the day before yesterday? Perhaps we may have an answer which addresses itself to the facts and not merely to the personal prejudices and personal characteristics of hon. Members on this side.

Major LLEWELLIN: I am not at all satisfied with the explanation that has been given by the Financial Secretary. He gave us a full account of what has been spent in these Colonies in answer to my hon. Friend, but now it appears that that account, which presumably was a full statement, was not a full statement because there are other accounts which he was, so to speak, keeping up his sleeve until the Noble Lord put his question. And now the Financial Secretary has ridden off with what is not a satisfactory answer. The loans about which the Lord Privy Seal in 1929 was talking at the time when he brought in the Colonial Development Act must have referred to the loans under the 1926 Act and, therefore, it is very material to have further information in regard to this matter, and I hope we shall receive that further information from the Financial Secretary. I hope that the House will not pass this Resolution as it has been left by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. If no more satisfactory answer is given, I hope we shall divide against the Resolution.

Sir K. WOOD: I intervene in the hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to give some further reply.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Certainly. I was perfectly correct in my statement and so was my right hon. Friend. The Colonial Development Act was for the expenditure of £1,000,000. It is no good the Noble Lord shaking his head. Part of that £1,000,000 could be used, and has been used, for paying the interest on the loans under the Act of 1926, and in so far as that is the case it did amend the Act of 1926. Part of it will be used for paying interest on this loan to Tanganyika. But it has also been used for a great many other purposes which are independent of this Act. When the Noble Lord imagines that no money has been spent out of the million because I said that the Tanganyika loan was the only one that arose under the Act, he is under an entire misapprehension.
The money provided by the Colonial Development Act has been used in a great many ways in furthering the activities of a number of colonies. That is quite distinct from the Act which we are considering to-day, and which this Resolution proposes to take a short step towards amending. So it is correct, in
the first place, what the then Lord Privy Seal said, that the Colonial Development Act was an amendment of the Act of 1926; and, secondly, it is perfectly correct that there was a large amount of that money that was going to be spent and has been spent. I was perfectly correct in saying that part of the money that had been spent under the Colonial Development Act was independent of the 1926 Act, and it was untrue to suggest that the money was confined to Tanganyika.

Lord E. PERCY: We must get to the bottom of this question of fact. I think that if the Financial Secretary will refresh his memory about the terms of the Act he will see that his explanation does not fit the facts at all. The only amendment of the Palestine and East Africa Loans Act of 1926 made by the Colonial Development Act of 1929 was that the loan guarantee under that Act by His Majesty's Government might be applied during a period of five years to defray interest on a loan. There was no question of making grants out of the Colonial Development Fund for that. The amendment of the Act had nothing whatever to do with the Colonial Development Fund. Therefore, it is really vain to say that, when the then Lord Privy Seal said that he was amending the East Africa Loans Act for the purpose of getting £1,000,000 worth of work under way, he was thinking of grants out of the Colonial Development Fund. He was not; he could not have been. The Amendment of the East Africa Loans Act had nothing whatever to do with such grants. I am afraid that the Financial Secretary is still confusing the £1,000,000 which the Lord Privy Seal said could be spent at once by the Colonial Government out of the loan, and the £1,000,000 which the Colonial Development Act professed to place at the disposal of the colonies every year, although £1,000,000 has not been placed at their disposal. I think that the Financial Secretary has completely confused himself, but we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question again on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I can only ask the hon. Gentleman to go into this matter in order that we may deal with it on that occasion.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS' AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I hope that the Second Reading of this Bill will be very readily disposed of, though it may be said that it is not a very intelligible Bill, and some criticism may be urged against it on that ground. The Bill deals with two points. The first arises out of a legal derision which, I felt, had to be put right. It will be remembered that in the Contributory Pensions Act of 1929, we followed the precedent of the Act of 1925 in adopting the normal occupation condition as a qualification for pre-Act widows' pensions. There were many widows then under the Act of 1925, whose husbands had been ill for a long time prior to that date and their claims to pensions were admitted on the strength of a legal opinion that the normal occupation of a person, existing at the commencement of the period of incapacity, could be regarded as persisting throughout incapacity. That, no doubt, was what the law intended. I may remind hon. Members that the contributory pensions scheme is very closely interlocked with the health insurance scheme and that in the health insurance scheme an insured person's status remains unaltered throughout the period of incapacity for work.
That view was taken with regard to the normal occupation qualification as regards pre-Act widows. That was so under the Act of 1925. Similarly, under the Act of 1929 we adopted the same practice, and many claims were admitted where a deceased person had done no work for three years or more before his death. Hon. Members will remember that under the Act of 1929 it was necessary to show that the normal occupation of the deceased had remained the same for three years before his death. It may be asked why we had different interpretations. It was unchallenged as regards the Act of 1925, but it has been called in question under the Act of 1929. The answer is that under the Act of 1925 the final decision on the question of normal occupation
was left with the Minister, but under the Act of 1929 there was a right of appeal on that question. As the 1929 Act was originally drafted, I proposed to leave the final decision to the Minister. That seemed to me to be reasonable, and, if that had remained, this situation would not have arisen. It will be remembered that at that time there was a great deal of controversy with regard to the powers of Ministers, and I was strongly pressed—indeed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) strongly pressed—that this power should be taken out of the hands of the Minister and given to the referee to whom there should be an appeal.
When cases came up where we were satisfied that incapacity had in fact existed continuously from the date when insurable employment ceased, no difficulty arose, but there were certain cases where the evidence was not at all clear, and a number of those persons exercised their right of appeal to the referee. That was where the real trouble began, because the referees indicated that, while in certain cases they might be satisfied as regards the existence of incapacity, they could not accept the view on which. I and my predecessors had consistently worked, that normal occupation persisted throughout the period of a man's incapacity, and in his view incapacity terminated normal occupation, so that, where the illness began more than three years before death, it was impossible to hold that a man had a normal occupation at some time previous to his death, and the widow was excluded from pension.

Mr. E. BROWN: Who challenged it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot be quite sure, but several cases were taken. I do not, however, quite understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. BROWN: How did the challenge arise? Was it through the Minister or some outside person or the court of referees?

Mr. GREENWOOD: A number of people exercised their own right to appeal to the referees. So far as I know, it was not anybody outside. It certainly was not done by us, but arose through the normal exercise of the rights of
insured persons. That raised a situation which could not be left unsettled, and it was necessary to arrange for a case to be stated for the opinion of the High Court. They did not get us out of our difficulties, because the effect of the decision was to exclude, on the one hand, the view that had always been taken that periods of incapacity, whether temporary or permanent, ought to be left out of account in deciding whether a man had retained his normal occupation or not, and, on the other hand, the view which the referees were disposed to take that the claim could not be admitted unless a man was actually employed within three years of his death.
After that decision in the High Court we examined in great detail all the outstanding cases, and it seemed to be clear that only about one type of case would be met, and that would be a case where a person became incapacitated, and it was assumed that it would be temporary, but where, in fact, it proved to be permanent in character; and as many of those cases happened some years ago all that is very difficult to prove. Even if all the information were available in these cases a strict application of the High Court decision would necessitate a revision of all the cases of this type in which pensions had been awarded before there had been any challenge of the correctness of the Department's view. That would lead, of course, to the exclusion of a number of widows who at the time of the passing of the Act were regarded by the House as being within its provisions. It is to deal with that situation that the first part of the Bill deals.
The inset lines, starting at (a), in line 5, on page 2, are inserted to give effect to the original intention of the Act. I am satisfied that the original intention was that those widows should obtain pensions, and, indeed, financial provision was made for it. Though there is a Money Resolution, it is not a case of having to provide new money, because it was assumed that these women were covered. At the same time, as the Scottish referees have raised certain doubts we have included paragraph (b) in line 8 to make it clear that genuine unemployment does not terminate normal occupation. That is really to make the law tight and satisfactory. The number
of cases may not be very large. At the moment there are outstanding between 4,000 and 5,000 cases which have accumulated whilst we have been getting this problem settled. Those people will not suffer when the Bill goes through, because their pensions will be payable for that time.
Then there is another small group of people. Their case is really duo to an oversight, for which I apologise. They are the small handful of widows of men surviving on the 4th of January, 1926, when the Act of 1925 came into operation, having reached the age of 70 years before July, 1912, when the National Insurance Act, as it was then called, came into force. I had not realised that there were such persons who were over 70 in 1912 and were surviving in 1926. They are not a very large group, of course, but the wives of these men comprise a class who, on the conditions laid down in Section 1 of the Act of 1929, were not qualified for pensions, because the condition imposed was an insurance condition, and their husbands had passed the contributive age for health insurance before the Act came into operation, and so were outside the scope of the Act. Therefore, the original paragraph of the Act, Sub-section (1) of Section 1, has been taken out and two paragraphs, (c) and (d), on page 2 of the Bill, have been inserted in their place. The revised paragraph (c), starting on line 23, deals with those for whom an insurance test is appropriate, and paragraph (d), imposes the normal occupation test for those who, by reason of the age of their husbands, could not pass the insurance test. Here a few hundred widows are involved, and, again, financial provision was made for them because it was thought that they were in the Bill. I do not claim this to be a large Measure, but I think it is a Measure which will meet with the approval of the House for dealing with two classes of cases, one of which, quite unwittingly, would have been ruled out now unless this matter were put right, and a smaller class who were excluded owing to our having overlooked the proper drafting necessary to bring them in. In these circumstances, I hope that the House will give the Bill Second Reading.

Sir K. WOOD: As the day has been a very bad one for the Government, it is right that we should try to bring some
measure of harmony into it. So far as the intentions of this Bill are concerned, the desire to carry out the original meaning of the Act and to provide for those widows whom it was originally intended should be provided for, there can, of course, be no objection in any quarter of the House. I venture, however, to suggest to the Minister that it is a little late in the evening to bring on a highly technical Bill of this kind. A number of us are in some difficulty, for, obviously, we do not want to detain the House at this time. I think, however, the House is entitled to a certain measure of consideration, because, after all, it has been owing to a mistake in drafting that we have to consider this matter now. I do think that the Attorney-General ought to have been present to assure us that this Bill, at any rate, carries out the real intention of the Government, and that these widows are safely secured under its provisions.
I remember very well, in 1929, the Attorney-General was present, and I remember his statement, when he first entered upon his high office—high in many ways—that it was essential that the Legislature should turn its mind to the necessity of passing whatever enactments it did pass in language which was capable of being understood by the ordinary people of the country. Yet, apparently, he overlooked putting it into language such as would satisfy the courts. It is only fair to say, on behalf of the referees who have to consider the cases, that one of the most eminent referees, well known to every member of the legal profession as a man holding very high position, wrote a few days ago to the following effect:
I see that the Minister of Health proposes to amend the Act of 1929 relating to Widows' pensions. As I happen to be one of the referees who refused to distort the English language by holding that a man who had been totally incapacitated for 10 years and then died had within three years of his death the normal occupation which he followed before his illness, may I be permitted to make one suggestion?
I think, in fairness to the referees who have to decide these cases month after month and deal with these difficult facts, the particular position which has arisen should be explained to the House at the present time. We shall have to look into that aspect of the matter so far as we can, because we must be certain this
time that the Minister has really got the matter right. I hope the Attorney-General will be present at the next stage of the Bill, because I think he ought to be here in order to carry out the duties of his office.
I remember that in 1929, when this subject was being dealt with, the Minister of Health was pressed to tell the House why he was not carrying out the pledge of the Prime Minister, who promised definitely that the system of pensions would be extended in such a way that a widow in need would be the one qualification for the pensions register. It is a surprising fact that the Minister of Health to-night, after an interval of a considerable period, has not said one word about the position of the Government and the undertaking which they gave on the occasion which I have mentioned. I remember that the Minister of Health endeavoured to avoid this difficulty by saying that the whole question had been referred to a Cabinet Committee. A month ago I asked the right hon. Gentleman if the Cabinet. Committee had reached a conclusion on the subject, and the answer I received was: "Do not press me; it was a Cabinet Committee." Consequently, when a Cabinet Committee does something we are not allowed to go any further.
11.0 p.m.
I think we must ask, when amending legislation is brought forward, what were the conclusions of the Cabinet Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman must not say that the conclusions of a Cabinet Committee are never to be communicated to the House. I think we are entitled to ask why the Government are saying nothing about the pledges to which I have referred, and what are the conclusions to which they have come. No one can pretend that this Bill deals with anything but a very small part of the injustices which have arisen as a result of the legislation of the Government. It may be said that that is a partisan view of an opponent of the Government, but only on Saturday one of the best known insurance workers in the country, a man who has spent, I suppose, nearly the whole of his time—at any rate, the whole of his spare time—in social work. Mr. Lesser, the President of the Faculty of Insurance, made this observation, which was reported in the "Times":
In the case of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Acts they saw the abuse of the insurance principle in a different form. Widows of persons who might have died before national health insurance was even thought of in this country, and who never contributed a penny piece under the scheme, were entitled—as an insurance benefit—to a pension; whereas the widow of a man who might have contributed 103 contributions and died before he could pay the one-hundred-and-fourth was denied any benefit whatever. Was that just or even sensible? Let them by all means act with kindness and sympathy towards the pre-insurance widow, but not under an insurance scheme.
Therefore, to-night, in according the right hon. Gentleman himself a Second Reading for this Bill, in order to bring within this Act a number of widows whom, quite rightly, none of us would desire to leave out, inasmuch as this matter was within the original intention of the Act and was dealt with in the Financial Resolution, let no one think that by this Measure the Government are carrying out the pledges which they gave to the electors, by which they obtained votes, and by virtue of which they sit on the Treasury Bench at the present time. Let no one think that by this very minor Measure they are remedying the injustices which are growing more and more apparent every day to everyone who is engaged in this scheme, as the result of the Government departing from the insurance principle and endeavouring to graft on to the 1926 pensions scheme that disastrous principle which has proved so fatal to our Unemployment Insurance.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am not so optimistic as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the question of the Prime Minister's pledge about every widow in need. I happened, within 10 days of the meeting of this Parliament, to put a question asking if the Government had ever made any calculation as to the number of widows in need in the country. The answer was startling, and I shall never forget it. It was that the Government had made no such calculation, nor did the Minister believe that such a calculation was possible without an inquiry into the means of every widow in the land. However long the Cabinet Committee has been sitting, I cannot believe that they can ever carry out inquiries of that kind, and I know they have not done so. Therefore, I cannot be as optimistic as the right hon.
Gentleman in thinking that we are going to get a reply, either in Debate or in answer to a question, to that very pertinent question.
I had occasion to notice the other day at the Sunderland by-election that the senior Member for Sunderland (Dr. Phillips) had the audacity to make a statement—and she was the chief adviser to the Prime Minister in the matter of widows' pensions before the Election—that the Government had kept all their promises, so the Minister must not blame us if we take a minute or two to remind him that all the promises have not been kept. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady's statement has been repeated by her and other members of the Ministry, but it does not happen to fit the facts. The facts are that, when the Prime Minister, before the Election, was like Moses in the wilderness, he only had to promise the milk and honey to the widows, but when he arrives, like Joshua in the Promised Land, he has to produce it, and he does not do it. That is the difference between the two occasions. Then the Chief Woman Adviser, whom, for the purposes of the parable we may call Miriam, is asked to excuse her Leader, which she does by saying that he has kept his promise. We cannot accept that view.
I did not rise merely to make this remark, because it can be carried further on another occasion, and no doubt hon. Members on this side of the House, and hon. Members on the opposite side also, who know perfectly well that the pledge has not been met, will need to put their views to the Prime Minister, because every one knows that there is no subject on which the women electors felt more keenly than this. At that great meeting at Buxton of women labour delegates, where that speech was made, it had, no doubt, a tremendous propaganda effect. I did not understand the Minister in his speech on the Measure, which we all welcome. The Minister seemed to me to destroy his own case. He says this would not have happened if he had not altered his original draft. He wanted to carry on the arrangements of the previous Act, but the House said, "You must have an appeal." It is only because of the appeals that this has happened. Five minutes afterwards he pointed out that some widows had made
their claims to him, and he had turned them down.

Mr. GREENWOOD: That was only on the question of evidence. Evidence has to be submitted. Every case that makes application does not get a pension.

Mr. BROWN: If the evidence did not satisfy the Minister and he turned the case down and there was no appeal, nothing more would have been heard of the cases. It is not a case of evidence and no evidence. He himself refused the cases. These people appealed and now, by some obscure process which we are not familiar with, there was a challenge made. We do not know who made it, but someone challenged the decision of the court of referees and then the Minister states a case to the High Court. The Committee is entitled to know who began the challenge. We all have widows in our constituencies who are concerned in this Bill. The thing that bothers Members and adds interminably to our labours, especially those who have no secretaries and have to write their own letters, is this continual stream of letters and visits to our correspondents to explain that we do not understand, after we have had correspondence with the Minister, why these things crop up. This is only one type of case out of scores. I should like to ask the Minister precisely how this challenge was made, by whom, and under what process, so that he is bound to state a case to the High Court under the Act. If the courts of referees are to blame, we ought to know. If they are not, they ought not to be blamed. If there is blame on the Department, the Minister has to answer for the sins of his Department and, if the Department is responsible for the challenge, the Committee ought to know and we ought to tell the officials through the Minister that what the Committee wants is for the Act to be drafted and carried out in the spirit and letter that Parliament intended when they were drafted.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: I congratulate the Minister on the new Bill that he is bringing in to right some of the wrongs that are done, but it leaves out a small group of widows who ought to come into the Bill. I hope that they will be brought in, and that the Minister will give further consideration to their case and in Committee insert some provision that will
make it possible for widows who are in need, and who have made 102 contributions to have their pensions. Surely they are as entitled to have a pension, having made 102 contributions, as other widows.

Sir K. WOOD: I suppose the hon. Member is aware that this is not a Committee point? Directly we pass the Financial Resolution, none of us can move Amendments like that.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am sorry to hear that. I did think it would be possible to have the opportunity of putting this matter right, which after all, is causing so much heart-burning. It seems to me to be one of the hardest cases we can have, that, these widows should be excluded from pension rights while others are getting pensions under easier terms. I have tried to do my best with successive Ministers to get this matter put right, but without result up to the present. If the Minister can give these widows that justice to which they are fully entitled, I beg him to do it now.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I would ask the Minister if it is not possible for us to be told to-night when it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Measure to right the real wrongs and inequalities of the present Widows' Pension Act. No one disguises the fact that this Bill is not righting a wrong. This is merely a case of oversights in Parliamentary draftmanship being put right. This is what the last Act intended to do, but nobody can suggest that this Bill is righting the wrongs that were previously so much before us. The last speaker spoke about persons who had made 102 contributions without getting pensions, but I could give worse cases than that. I see the Lord Privy Seal here, who used to be Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I had a case with him which was very much worse. A man was employed and paid health insurance contributions from 1912 to 1926, in other words, he paid in, when an employé of the Glasgow Corporation, something like 740 stamps. The Corporation promoted him to be a foreman, and for two years and one month he was a foreman, and then, owing to a change of work, he was shifted back to being an ordinary workman, and he paid then for nine months, bringing his contributions up to about 800. He died, and
there is no pension payable, and he has left behind him something like three children. He contributed 800 stamps, and to-day other people are receiving pensions with very many fewer contributions.
Some time ago all parties in this House combined in an effort to get men settled in our Dominions. Men went out in good faith in order to relieve the parish councils and the Employment Exchanges. They started life anew, and they found in Canada, after being there for some time, that things were going from bad to worse. Men with 10 or 12 years' contributions went to Canada and struggled for two or three years, leaving their wives and families in this country and keeping them all the time. The men came back, and some of them died, and their widows are outside the provisions of the Act. Nobody can defend that sort of thing.
There is a further case, that of the person who, by virtue of the 1925 Act, was given the right to become a voluntary contributor, so that he only needed to pay a contribution, and if he could show 103 or 104 contributions previous to going outside of insurance, he could come up to the 104 contributions. The man who goes out and comes back again through the ordinary insurance method cannot become eligible until he has made 104 contributions again. That, surely, is an inequality. In Scotland the position is clear. The voluntary contributor can get the pension after having made a few contributions by means of the two periods being linked up, but in England he cannot get it. The fact of the matter is that the age of 55 is an arbitrary one. I can make out a stronger case for the widow of 48 with young children than for the widow of 55 whose family has grown up. The widow of 48 and her children with nobody at all to help them are the most pathetic of all.
The Lord Privy Seal when he was Under-Secretary of State for Scotland sent me a nice, kindly letter saying that the Government were undertaking a review of these matters. He held out hope to some of us, and I seriously believed that the thing would be undertaken. Two years have gone, and we are asking the Government to state what is going to happen in regard to those inequalities. I think that the Minister
stated when introducing the 1929 Measure that Health Insurance, Widows' Pensions, Old Age Pensions, Unemployment Insurance, Workmen's Compensation, needed to be co-ordinated and inequalities to be swept away. This Parliament within a few months will be faced with the prolongation of old age pension rights. It is time the Government faced up to these inequalities. They are indefensible. Our party promised that they would put them right—nay, we promised higher pensions. I am not pleading for higher pensions to-night, but that the widow with her children should be treated the same as others. I welcome the fact that 10,000 are being brought in, and I hope that they will live long to enjoy the pension when they get it. But there are hundreds of thousands left out. I earnestly plead with the Minister to bring every widow and every spinster within the ambit of his Act.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I am sure we all agree with the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that a great opportunity has been lost in not bringing in a Bill to remedy the many injustices which arose through the 1929 Act. I ventured to point out when the Bill was being discussed that for every single widow who came within the ambit of the Bill at least six would be disqualified. In my own experience that is what is happening. We all remember the circumstances in which the Bill was brought in. In those days a married woman would say: "O to be a widow now that Labour's there," but after the Bill was brought in, "The widows of England are loud in their wail." For months I have been trying to get these cases attended to, without success. I congratulate the Minister of Health on bringing this Bill forward. It will have the support of every Member in the House. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) asked the Parliamentary Secretary what was the cause of the controversy which made it necessary to bring in the Bill? I will save her the trouble of answering my hon. Friend. The reason was that the Government refused an Amendment proposed from these benches supported by the Conservative party, and, I think, by the majority of the rank and file of the Labour party, which would have made this Bill absolutely unnecessary. That Amendment was to leave out
the three years, and to provide that the qualification should be if a man had at any time been insured. If the Government had not been hard-hearted and had accepted the Amendment, this Bill would not have been necessary. The Bill should have a Clause D, which should be a vote of censure on the Government from those who for so long have been deprived of the, benefit to which they were entitled.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): rose—

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. Will there be some Minister to reply to those of us who intend to take part in this discussion? The Minister of Health has exhausted his right and the Parliamentary Secretary will have exhausted her right. I intend to speak on the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that any point of Order arises. The Minister of Health, having introduced the Bill, will probably be able to reply by leave of the House.

Miss LAWRENCE: I thought the Debate was exhausted. As it is not exhausted, I should like to listen to the hon. Member.

Mr. STEPHEN: A protest should be made against this matter being raised at this late hour. I do not know of any subject that is of greater importance. The House should have an opportunity of discussing the present position in connection with the working of the pension system. If the experience of other lion Members is like mine, there are many old people and widows who are denied pensions who ought to be in receipt of them. It is a subject that would have been well worthy of a day's consideration by the House. The Minister was a little ingenious in the explanation that he gave for the introduction of the Bill. He said that a certain thing was in the mind of the Department when the Bill was introduced and that afterwards it was discovered, owing to the decision of the court of referees and a decision of the High Court, that the intention of the Government had not been fulfilled. He was a little disingenious in his explanation, because the decision of the referee was not a decision on the other circum-
stances of the applicant for pension; the point was decided by the court of referees because the Minister refused the pension on particular grounds.

Miss LAWRENCE: Oh, no.

Mr. STEPHEN: A pension was refused and the applicant went to the Court of Referees to get that decision reversed. When he goes there, he goes to contest statements made by the Minister and which have led him to his decision. The referee only decides the case on the points brought before him, and consequently I hold that the referee came to his decision because the Department or the Minister had refused the pension on this particular ground.

Miss LAWRENCE indicated dissent.

Mr. STEPHEN: The Parliamentary Secretary shakes her head. I shall be glad to hear how it came that the applicant was refused a, pension on some other grounds, and that the referee said, "You are disallowed on other grounds as well." If that be the case, it is an extraordinary position for the referee to take, and there is something wrong if a referee acts in this way. When an applicant goes to the referee, a series of issues are involved, and he is asked to judge upon those issues. He is not entitled to judge upon some other issue upon which the applicant has had no opportunity of offering evidence. If he does he is acting outside his province, and should be asked for an explanation as to why he has decided a case upon a new issue which has not been put before him by the Minister or the applicant. If it is so simple as is indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary, why did not the Minister of Health give us the exact circumstances as to how the matter has arisen? There would then have been no need for any discussion. It is evident that hon. Members opposite any more than myself have not understood the Minister's explanation on this point.
It appears that the Department, in considering these claims for pensions, have scrutinised the applications to see if they can find any way of shutting the applicants out of pensions. Take the administration in Scotland. There is a lawyer who goes to the referee to present the case for the Minister. There is no lawyer for the poor person with a very moderate amount of education,
faced with the complicated wording of the Act. The lawyer presses the case, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) appeared in one case the lawyer was very browbeating in his manner, in an attempt to get a decision against the applicant. But he had the wrong individual to deal with, and a decision favourable to the applicant was given. When that is taking place and the applicant is a person of timid disposition there is very little chance of that person getting a successful appeal. I believe it is the business of the Department to try to bring out all the points in favour of the applicant, to see how the pension could be given, and to strain the law, if necessary, in favour of the applicant, but in my experience it seems as if it is all the other way, and the law is strained in order to try to bar the applicant from receiving a pension.
I also join in protest against the fact that we are getting no information as to when there is to be an endeavour made to improve the whole system of pensions and to provide for cases which are just as glaring as the case with which we are dealing in this Bill. There is the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson). Every one of us has experience of similar cases. But there is nothing to he done to remedy them. I cannot understand the state of mind of the Minister, who comes here with this amending Measure and offers no hope of providing for these other cases which the House generally thinks should be remedied—the case of the person with 103 stamps, whose widow is unable to receive a pension, and other very shocking cases where a pension has been denied.
On one thing I can congratulate the Minister, and that is on the way in which the Bill is drawn. It is drawn so tightly as to shut out any Amendment that might include a few more people within its ambit. I have seldom seen a Bill more cleverly drawn in that respect. The Minister can have my compliments if he so desires, though I do not know whether he will take my statement as a compliment or not. I believe opinion in the country demands that an attempt should be made to remedy the injustices which are being suffered by widows and old people. I ask for some information
as to the mind of the Government on the matter, and whether we can hope for a further Bill this Session to bring comfort to these people in their difficult circumstances.

Major WOOD: I have two points to make arising out of this Bill. The first, I need not elaborate, because it has been dealt with rather fully already. I think that the paragraph of the Memorandum dealing with Clause 1, is not quite as frank as it ought to be. The suggestion in it is that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister was anxious to get in all these pensioners, but that some bold bad person prevented him from doing so. It is quite obvious that the Minister could have granted the pensions if he had liked. He was the only person who could have challenged this decision; nobody else was in a position to do so. It does not seem to me that the Memorandum puts the position as it ought to be put before the House. There is another consideration which I desire to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman now, in the hope that before the Committee stage he will give it attention. It is with regard to the words in Clause 1, Sub-section (1, a):
his normal occupation immediately before he became incapable of work.
The test that has been employed in other cases is that if a widow is to get the pension, it must be shown that her husband had been, some time, during the three years before his death, engaged in an insurable occupation. But these words would tie an applicant down to the actual date upon which illness started. If the widow is to get a pension the husband must have been engaged in an insurable occupation on that very day. The Sub-section assumes that everyone has and can only have, one normal occupation, but I hold that assumption to be wrong. A great many people have more than one insurable occupation. I could give a number of cases. It is a common case in the North of Scotland that a man who, during the summer time, is a salmon fisher, during the winter is a crofter, or a hawker, or a small shopkeeper, or is engaged in some uninsurable occupation of that kind. If these words are adopted you will have this absurd result. If such a man were to fall ill while engaged in salmon fishing, his widow would get the pension, whereas if he fell ill when engaged as
a hawker or shopkeeper she would not get the pension. In other words, if he fell ill in the summer time, she would get the pension—[HON. MEMBERS: "If he died!"]—but if he fell ill in the winter time she would not. Of course the assumption is that he dies eventually, without having resumed his occupation. The Clause only deals with such cases. I think I have put my point clearly, and I hope I have put it fairly. I believe it to be a good point, and I hope to move an Amendment on it in Committee, which I hope the Government will receive favourably.

Miss LAWRENCE: As there has been a demand for further explanation, if I intervene at this stage, it, may enable us to dispense with a certain amount of discussion. We have had two classes of speeches in this Debate—those addressed to the Bill and those addressed to what a real Insurance Bill ought to be. There has been a very strong demand for a large insurance Measure bringing in spinsters and widows and everybody. I want hon. Members to realise that in asking for a Measure of that kind, they are asking for something which is very difficult to accomplish, having regard to Parliamentary time. Such a Measure would be a major subject for a Session of Parliament and would occupy a very considerable amount of Parliamentary time.

Mr. JOHN: And would be much more beneficial than opening cinemas on Sunday.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am endeavouring to summarise the position.

Mr. BATEY: It does not mention the case raised by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Richardson).

Miss LAWRENCE: The case mentioned by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. R. Richardson) is precisely one of those cases which stir the largest question of all, namely, whether it is to be an insurance matter or a matter independent of insurance. As long as it is an insurance matter, there must be a line of demarcation drawn somewhere. It is well known that the Government in one of their first Measures dealt with some of the hardest cases and brought some 300,000 widows into insurance. It is also well known that in the King's Speech this
Session many other Measures were mentioned, and they had from the Labour movement precisely the same sort of support as the case of the widows. There was an important demand for a trade union Bill and a whole list of Measures in the King's Speech, which afforded a very full programme for the Session. That list is not exhausted. The battle is still raging on some of these Measures, and the commitments for this Session are such that a further major Measure is impossible, however desirable. Therefore, when Members ask that the Government should introduce a comprehensive Bill with regard to pensions, I have to say, what every Member knows, that it is impossible. If a Measure is introduced, it must be a Measure for the next Session of Parliament.
As to what will be brought forward in the next Session, those responsible—the Prime Minister and the Cabinet—will, as they have done before, weigh one against the other the conflicting demands for the remedying of various injustices in this country, and will, using their best consideration, select for first treatment those which are most urgent. The widows have their claims. There are hundreds of thousands of other grievances and other wrongs which other Members, or the same Members at other times, press forward. So large a Measure as is asked for cannot be introduced in this Session, occupied as it is with many other matters. Here is a little thing which can be slipped in during an afternoon Session. It is not a matter affecting some 300,000 widows like the original Bill, only about 10,000 or 11,000, and it is a Bill worth putting through.
Hon. Members have pressed to be informed why the referees ca me in to turn down the widows' claims. I will respond to that invitation and say exactly what happened. Certain widows put forward a claim and the Minister was not satisfied, on the facts, that the conditions which have to be fulfilled had been complied with. They were a few cases where it did not appear that the husband had been totally incapacitated during the necessary period. The Minister has no discretion in these cases, he has to judge according to law. If the law says "incapacity" we cannot wink at it. We must be satisfied that the conditions are fulfilled. A Minister who did not act in
that way would be setting an atrocious precedent. If one Minister is to strain the law to bring widows in, another Minister, equally unscrupulous, might strain the law to keep them out.

Mr. BUCHANAN: We say the Tories did that.

Miss LAWRENCE: I say that if any Minister strains the law to keep widows either in or out he is failing in one of the first duties of a Minister, which is to administer the law as it stands. Certain widows were turned down on the question of incapacity, and they appealed to the referees, claiming that the conditions of the law had been fulfilled, arguing that their husbands were genuinely incapacitated. The referees then broke what was entirely new ground. They said, "These people may be justified according to the facts, their husbands may have been totally incapacitated, but the. Minister, is wrong according to law." Though their husbands were totally incapacitated for the three years preceding death, nevertheless occupation does not persist during incapacity, and the widows were turned down on the question of law.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary now saying that which she denied, when I was speaking, by shaking her head, namely, that the referees introduced new methods—

Miss LAWRENCE: Certainly!

Mr. STEPHEN: —and decided something that had not been put to them either by the Minister or the applicant.

Miss LAWRENCE: I did not under stand that I shook my head at that statement. I shook my head at previous remarks which I have explained. The referees gave a decision that the Minister was wrong in law, and that occupation could not persist through incapacity. One must not blame the referees. They also have a duty, they have to decide according to the law and the facts, and however disagreeable one may think their view of the law to be, the fact remains that the judges of the High Court did not turn it down.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have been attending those courts for years, and as far as I understand it there can be only two cases—the applicant's case and the Minister's case. The court of referees
to which I go would never dream of deciding a case other than the applicant's case or the Minister's case. Am I to understand that this court of referees have been allowed to decide a case on facts which were not put before them by either the Minister or the applicant?

Miss LAWRENCE: They decided that on law the Minister was wrong. It was not a question of facts. The Minister had said that this man was not incapacitated, and the widow said he was. It went to the referees, who said, whether incapacitated or not, occupation does not persist during incapacity, and they must be turned down on that ground. The referees have a statutory duty, and, if they think any Minister of the Crown is wrong in regard to the law, I cannot see that they are wrong in saying so.

Mr. STEPHEN: Am I to understand that the referee decided a question of law that was not referred to him either by the Minister or the applicant?

Miss LAWRENCE: Certainly. The Minister believed occupation persisted during incapacity. A case comes before the referees, not on this or that point but as a whole, and they turned this case down, not on the facts but on the law. Finding that the cases of several thousands of widows were called into question, the Minister asked for the decision of the High Court. As a result of the judgment of the learned judges—and I am not criticising the judges but simply explaining it was very unsatisfactory from the point of view of what we wanted to do—it appeared that some 4,000 or 5,000 widows would lose pensions.
The object of the Bill is to restore the law to what we believed when the Act was passed it would be and to make it what the Law Officers of the Department assured us it would be. An hon. Member has suggested that words should be inserted to deal with alternative occupation. I think that is a Committee point, and I should like to consider it, without pledging either myself or my right hon. Friend.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
It is now nearly midnight. We have heard the Parliamentary Secretary ex-
pounding her ideas as to what widows' pensions should be. I think the Prime Minister, who said earlier in the day that he did not intend, in moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, to keep the House at any length, would be astonished to know that the hon. Lady has been discussing the Measures which will be included in the King's Speech for the next Session of Parliament.

Miss LAWRENCE: I really must protest. All I said was that, if any large Measure were introduced, it could not be introduced this Session, but would have to be the subject of consideration by the Government in the next Session.

Sir T. INSKIP: I said that the hon. Lady described her ideas of what such a Bill would be if it had to include all the proposals made, and she added that it must be a Measure for next Session and would be considered with the claims of other competing Measures for the available time of Parliament next Session. Therefore, I am right in saying that the hon. Lady discussed the possibilities of such a Measure with a view to the arrangements for next Session and not for this Session. That is a matter which ought to be discussed in the presence of the Prime Minister or someone in a position to speak as to the business and as to the intentions of the Government. It ought not to be discussed here at midnight.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out that we are discussing the Second Reading of this Bill. It may be my fault that I have not called hon. Members to order for going outside the Second Reading of the Bill, but it is customary on the Second Reading of a Bill for Members to express regret that something was not included in the Bill which ought to be included. I do not think, on the other hand, that we can go into this matter and discuss a question which is quite outside the Bill.

Sir T. INSKIP: I shall comply with the letter and the spirit of your Ruling and confine myself strictly to the Motion for the Adjournment. There are two reasons why it should be accepted. In the first place, we have on this side shown a real desire to help the Govern-
ment. The Minister explained that this Bill was necessary to rectify two mistakes made by the Government—

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, the first was made by your party.

Sir T. INSKIP: The right hon. Gentleman asked us to assist him in the passage of this Measure. The right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), in a five minutes' speech, said we had no intention of resisting it and would co-operate in passing it. Not a single other Member from this side of the House above the Gangway has spoken. The Debate has ranged over a number of interesting topics raised by hon. Members opposite. These are matters which the Government should consider and reply to when there is more time and a less jaded House. One reason why this Debate should be adjourned is that obviously there is some dissatisfaction below the Gangway opposite as to the facts explained by the hon. Lady with regard to the ruling of the referees. It is plain that further consideration of that aspect of the case is required. In view of the fact that a number of hon. Members opposite still desire to continue the Debate, I beg to move its adjournment.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading without any further unnecessary delay. We have largely discussed what is outside the Bill. There is no controversy about the desirability of legislation on these lines, and I should have thought that, after this discussion, it would have been possible for the House to agree with unanimity to the Second Reading.

12 m.

Mr. TINKER: I hope the hon. and learned Member will withdraw this Motion. I have sat here all day, but have not had any chance of taking part in the Debate. I do not want in any way to criticise the Bill; my only object is to urge the Minister to get it passed as quickly as possible, and I should like an assurance that he will take the quickest possible steps and use all his Parliamentary power to get these widows put right. Many in my constituency have been urging this matter upon me. If hon. Members opposite are in agreement with us now, let tham not press this Motion, but let them help us to get the Bill passed into law.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: On a point of Order. May I ask your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it will be in order, under the terms of the Financial Resolution, to move Amendments with regard to the point which has been raised by an hon. Member on the Liberal Benches? Would such Amendments be out of order in Committee?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not my business to say what is or is not in order in Committee; that is entirely a matter for the Chairman of the Committee, and I can give no Ruling upon it. All that now concerns me is what is in order on the Second Reading.

Sir T. INSKIP: May I say that I am perfectly willing to withdraw if hon. Members do not desire to continue the Debate now; but, if they desire to continue the Debate, we really must, on this side, have an opportunity of joining in it.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if the discussion is continued, the Motion for Adjournment will not be withdrawn.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I am concerned, as every other Member of the House must be, about this matter. The most distressing experiences that we have are in regard to these cases in which widows are disappointed of being able to get their pensions, and undoubtedly there was a promise of something far more effective. On that score I am anxious to make an appeal to the House for something more effective than is being done at the present moment. We approve of what is being done, but desire that more should be done.

Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and negatived.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Orders of the Day — WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purpose of any Act a the present Session to amend Section one of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums which are payable by virtue of the said Act on account of old age pensions payable under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924."—(King's Recommendation signified.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Miss LAWRENCE: Hon. Members will perceive that the only additional charge on the Treasury is that concerned with Sub-section (1, d) of Clause 1. No additional provision has to be made as far as widows are concerned, because, when the original Act was passed, it was believed that the 5,000 widows or thereabouts who, as a consequence of a judgment of the High Court, have been excluded, would be in receipt of pensions. It is necessary formally to move that they should be included, but, as far as these 5,000 are concerned, there will be no additional charge on the Treasury. The additional charge on the Treasury will come with respect to the second class of widows. It is estimated that there are 750 of them. They are widows of men who attained the age of 70 before 1912 and survived after 1926. The additional charge will be the small sum set down for the 750 widows. It will be approximately, for the 10 years, £70,000, assuming that they live to an average age. The additional charge on the Treasury is therefore, a very small matter.

Sir K. WOOD: I regret very much that the Government have decided to go on with the financial Resolution at this time. It would have been far more reason able if the spirit and letter of the Prime Minister's undertaking had been observed. When he was asked by the leader of the Opposition how far he proposed to proceed, he said he would go as far as he could with the Orders on the Paper so that we should not sit late, or unduly inconvenience the House. There is a Report stage and the Government do not
really advance their business by persisting in an endeavour of that kind. The Government, however, have decided to proceed and, however much it may inconvenience hon. Members, I must offer a few observations upon the Resolutions, because in many respects this is perhaps the most important stage of the Bill. Do not let hon. Members deceive themselves. It is no good telling their constituents they wished to move Amendments in Committee on the Bill to bring in hard cases but were stopped owing to the rules of the House. This is the opportunity if they seriously intend to press any hard cases. After the Resolution has been passed, the House is bound by it and Amendments in Committee on the Bill to extend its scope will not be allowed. That is a very rough and imperfect way of describing the rules of the House, but I do it in order to emphasise the importance of the Resolution and the necessity of discussing it however inconvenient it may be at this time of the night. Various Members on the Second Reading said they had undertaken to inform their constituents what they intended the Widows' Pensions Measure should contain and they gave the House a number of cases.

The CHAIRMAN: This is rather a long prelude to the Resolution itself.

Sir K. WOOD: That may be so, but however long the prelude may be, I do not think it is out of order. The length of the prelude, if I may respectfully suggest to you, does not determine its relevancy or otherwise.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman must get down to the Resolution before the Committee.

Sir K. WOOD: What I am endeavouring to point out—and I emphasise it particularly, I hope at not undue length—is the importance of this Resolution. Further, this is the only opportunity that is given to us to press upon the Government the necessity for extending this Resolution, because—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be done at this stage. If this Resolution were to be extended, it would have to be withdrawn.

Sir K. WOOD: In that case I would urge the desirability of pressing upon the Government the withdrawal of this Resolution in order that, if necessary, a further one may be brought in to carry cases that are not already carried by this Resolution. This Bill is very severely drafted, and unless we urge on the Government at this stage sufficient grounds to withdraw the Resolution, which, I take it, we are at full liberty to do, the only opportunity that we have will be gone. I recollect that on many occasions Governments have been induced, on the discussion of a Financial Resolution, to withdraw it in deference to the strong expression of the opinion of hon. Members that under it there would be insufficient scope for a number of cases to be brought in. [Laughter.] I say say to hon. Members opposite that I do not see any particular reason for amusement. If one is to treat the speeches that have been made to-night seriously, the whole trend of the discussion has been that this Bill and this Financial Resolution itself are not drawn in sufficiently wide terms to permit many of the cases to be included. I have known of various occasions when there has been a sufficient appeal from hon. Members in all parts of the House to the Government to withdraw a Resolution, in order to meet the desires of—

Mr. McSHANE: On a point of Order. Is not that three times that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated himself?

The CHAIRMAN: I have not counted the number of times.

Sir K. WOOD: I am very sorry. I had no intention of doing so, and I will not repeat it again. I wanted to emphasise that fact, and perhaps I did it in a fashion which displeased hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will complete that portion of my observations by saying that, if hon. Gentlemen are serious in desiring the extension of the Bill, their only opportunity is to press the Government to-night to withdraw the Financial Resolution.

The CHAIRMAN: No Amendment has been put down affecting the Resolution, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, can rightly discuss anticipated Amendments which may be put down to the Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: With very great respect to the Chair, which you know I always pay—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think that the Chairman will agree with me. I do not recall any occasion on which I have wilfully disobeyed, or desired to disobey, your Ruling, Sir Robert. But I submit that there is no need for Amendments to be put upon the Paper before Members of the House can press upon the Government the necessity for withdrawing the Financial Resolution because it does not have the full scope which they desire. I feel confident that the suggestion I have made on a point of Order can be substantiated. I wish to fortify the position in order that the matter may further be pursued when we reach the Report stage of the Resolution. I am fairly confident that the point which I have put to you is in order and that I can, without any Amendment having been put upon the Paper, adduce reasons why the Government should withdraw the Resolution because it is too limited in form. I will endeavour to support that particular view when we come to the Report stage on the Financial Resolution, if it is seriously controverted in any quarter. Having said that in order to have it placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to which we can refer later, I will leave the matter so that we may return to it, if necessary, on another occasion.
The terms of the Financial Resolution are simply limited to the three cases set out in the explanatory Memorandum. It is only in respect of the three particular cases which are mentioned in the Memorandum that the Financial Resolution carries any further extension as far as the present Measure is concerned. Let us he perfectly plain upon that fact. I hope that no one will controvert me when I say that it is only within the compass of those three cases that any extension, as far as the Bill is concerned, can be made. After reading the Memorandum and the statement which
has been made by the Minister, no one can say that he is not aware of the very circumscribed nature of the proposal. I hope that no one will say that we did not do our best to get the matter extended and that we ignored this important part of the Measure. It is true, as the Minister has said, that it really does not make any considerable demands upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Financial Resolution had made any considerable demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer we should not have seen the Bill. The reason we are discussing the Resolution is because it is limited in its terms. Anyone who knows the financial position of the country knows that that is the reason, and to talk as the Parliamentary Secretary did about what was going to happen next Session is a case of talking through one's hat, if one may speak of a lady in that way. The reason why a number of people are excluded who on many grounds ought to have been included, is largely due to the financial position and the mismanagement of the country by the Government. While we regret that the Financial Resolution is not more just, we do not propose to offer any opposition to it, but we note what the Minister has said and what hon. Members opposite have said and we shall watch very carefully what they say when they go on the public platforms.

Resolution to be Reported To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-Seven Minutes after Twelve o'Clock.